FrenzyFan

This post is about Aaron Brooks. If you don't want to get drug into the same argument, stop reading here. If you have some belief that this thread will change opinions, when the evidence of their own two eyes will not, stop reading. This thread is here because I need to make this point - and no matter how hard I try to stop myself - I just have to do it.

Aaron Brooks is not a terrible QB. He has a ton of athleticism, and the ability to scramble, which makes enemy defensive coordinators have to plan for that. AB has a powerful throwing arm, and is capable of throwing the long ball. AB led us to our only playoff win.

Aaron Brooks is not a great QB. He has trouble reading a defense. He gets happy feet in the pocket when under pressure. He throws off his back foot. He is slow to start a play (why his center keeps stepping on his feet) and he drops back WAY too far (you've all seen the ten step drop?). He has trouble throwing the touch pass. His record as a starter stays at .500, including the year he tooks Blake's team to the playoffs and beat the Rams.

The problems that AB has, he has always had. Though people like to throw stats around (Low INTs) as if they indicate he doesn't throw off his back foot any more - I suggest they are not watching the same games I am. AB has always been, and likely always will be, inconsistent. The entire NFL knows it. Profesional sportswriters use him for the gag reel and call him "the most overrated player in the NFL."

Even so, I would keep him if that were all there was to it. Many people compare him to other QB and say they have the same types of problems. These comparisons are 100% accurate. The difference is that those other QBs, DON'T THINK THEY ARE GREAT! Those other QBs recognize their shortcomings. They acknowledge them and work on them. Many of them show CONSISTENT IMPROVEMENT.

AB is an arrogant, ego-maniac who cannot even acknowledge where he needs to improve. He calls himself a great QB on an average team. What kind of selective vision of reality is that?!

One of the medical definitions of insanity is attempting the same actions over and over again, and expecting a different result. For example, running full-steam at a wall. You hit the wall, bounce off and wind up in pain. You do it again, expecting this time you will fly over the wall, maybe? For that reason, I am going to try to make this my last post about AB and the reasons I think we need to get rid of him no matter the cost, no matter the consequence.

These posts won't change anything or anyone's opinon, especially when it appears stapled to their brain. Lord knows, my opinion of AB has changed this year - but it seems obvious to me by now that some people are incapbale of changing their mind - even when the evidence is overwhelming.

So be it and that, as I have said before, is my two cents.

JKool

Whodi,

(0) I like the way you phrase things Whodi, you have a nice knack for making the people you disagree with sound like they\'ve said something totally moronic. What I said with respect to Duece was this:Then I went on to suggest some reasons not to buy it. Thus, I\'m not sure why you think you are \"flat out disagreeing with my assessment of Duece\", since I didn\'t provide an assessment. I provided some points, and I was waiting to hear what other people had to say.

(1) Whether or not Duece is inconsistent depends on what you are looking at. I hadn\'t thought of this before, but it is an interesting point. A guy with two good years and one bad one, who develops a fumbling problem and a weight problem may be judged as inconsistent - year to year. However, I agree that judgement is probably a bit off. I already agreed with BMG that trading Duece is probably not a great option - but it is an option nonetheless. Furthermore, at the outset of this season it was already in open discussion that Duece would be up for a contract negotiation. Sure, he\'s still under contract, but are we going to pay our only real back rookie money? That doesn\'t seem right. He\'ll be renegotiating and getting paid money that WILL hurt our cap position.

(2) I actually don\'t think that we need to get rid of any of the three, though BMG makes a fine point on this. Horn will want to be here, and he won\'t get a better deal elsewhere. He\'ll sign for less than he wants. If Duece is smart, he\'ll wait until next year when there isn\'t a glut of good RBs; this way they\'ll have to pay him more. We\'re already in pretty good cap position even with Brooks\' contract. We should be able to sign 2-3 pricey FAs and our rookies (at least last I heard).

(3)

- (a) The Bengals being a poor orginization is irrelevant. They drafted guys that most teams thought would be good. Both Smith and Kilmer were highly rated QBs. It isn\'t like the Bengals were reaching. Those guys just didn\'t pan out, just like over 50% of fist round picks.
- (b) Again, our defense sucks, our OLine stinks, we have one really good WR, and a back who is overweight, injured, and has a case of the fumbles. Are we really that much better than all these other teams?
- (c) Also, I\'m not making this up, there are few guys who can come right in and play at the QB spot. Maybe one or two per draft class. Most guys need to learn systems much more complicated than their college system, get used to NFL speed, get used to leading older more experienced guys. It takes a few years to get a real feel for it in most cases. Again, that is why so many starting QBs in the NFL did NOT start as rookies - it is not merely because there is another guy there, it is because they have to LEARN to play NFL ball and the learning curve for a QB is NOT the same as it is for a RB or DLinemen.
- (d) I don\'t think this but if you DO think that poor orginizations draft poor players (as in the Bengals case) how in the world could you believe that we would draft a good QB? Do you think we have a good orginization? IMO our Front Office is actually the biggest embarassment as far as this season went. Wow, we do a great job of assessing talent and paying the right amount for it - Stinchcomb, Sullivan, Ruff, Jones, Henderson, and the list goes on.

(4) I never said that a rookie couldn\'t succeed here. I said that without certain changes he will not succeed here. For a rookie, other than a real special rookie, to succeed here we would need a MAJOR improvement in our OLine and we would need a defense. Both McNabb\'s and Roethlisberger\'s teams had solid defenses - we do not. Having a good defense is critical to having a \"game manager\" QB.

(5) Jim Druckenmiller is perhaps an example of what you are getting at - he was drafted in the first round by the 49ers in 97, they still had a pretty good squad then.

Either way, the question was a bit odd on both our parts: a really good QB will be drafted high up in the first round (unless we\'re willing to widen the scope of our definition of \"projected to do well\") - good teams don\'t get to pick then, so it may be IMPOSSIBLE for me to give you the counter example you are asking for. Thus, before I can answer your excellent challenge, we have to decide what we mean by a \"QB who should succeed\" and a \"good orginization\".

(6) McNabb\'s QB rating in his rookie season was 60. He threw 8 TDs and 7 picks that year. That is not a success. His second season his QB rating was 77.8 (that isn\'t too bad for a sophomore) but worse than Aaron\'s rating for this year (which we both know you think is sh-t for a QB rating). I\'d have to say that McNabb did not have \"success\" right away. Maybe McNabb is an example that will satisfy you?

[Edited on 31/1/2005 by JKool]

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

JKool

FF, great post. Both level headed and intelligent.

I, of course, cannot resist comment, even though I share the same frustration as most do with this very topic. Some of the points are general, so don\'t take them as directed at your very even and well written post.

(1) People do change their mind. Some are more honest than others about it. Of course, there are some who dig in and become more pig-headed about their view rather than less, but many do slowly change their views, arguments, and thoughts even if it is only about subtleties.

(2) All this stuff about inconsistency boggles my mind. Imagine a team with an inconsistent running game, inconsistent defense, inconsistent passing game, and an inconsistent special teams. On any given Sunday any two of these five things could be relatively poor and the team could win - it really just is a matter of all of them not being off at the same time. Sure, inconsistency is frustrating, improvement would be good, but it isn\'t the end all be all of a winning team. Also, I grant that Cullpepper is a better QB than Brooks, how much better is debateable, but here is a QB who can throw more INTs than TDs one year and another year throw almost 40 TDs - it that isn\'t inconsistent, what is? Granted those are his yearly stats, but many other QBs are game to game inconsistent and still great QBs (Farve, still my favorite example, sorry Whodi).

(3) W-L records actually only give us information about the team and not really much at all about the players. Since games are won and lost by teams, I don\'t see how that really provides much, if any, about any particular player. The details of the W or L matter much more. Throwing a pick on the goaline with seconds left costing you the game - that says something about the player. Having a L, without information like that, says nothing IMO about the player(s). I guess I never really understood why W-L were used in arguments about players, as they are aggregate stats (apply to large groups). Thus, a QB\'s W-L record is a bit of a red herring, since it is NOT the QB\'s W-L record, but rather the TEAM\'s W-L record. I\'m open to argument here, but that is my current view.

(4) No. This is not a medical definition of \"insanity\", since there is no medical definition of insanity. This is a handy way of talking about a particular kind of problem we like to talk about here. It is more like \"folk wisdom\" on \"nut jobs\", than it is like any medical definition.

(5) I agree 100% that AB says some stupid sh-t. I also agree that he is lacking in the leadership department. However, since when did being arrogant make you a bad football player. Think Deion Sanders - a pretty darn good cover corner (if nothing else) - arrogant as sh-t. If you are saying that AB impacts the other players on his team with the stupid stuff he says, I agree, but there are many players like that (Horn was like that once, and no one is saying ship him out right now!). I suppose, I agree with you that this is a knock against AB, but I\'m confused as to why it is conclusive reason to get rid of him (especially given the ambivalence in the arguments you note earlier in your post).

(6) I\'m guessing this is an overstatement. Brooks would be a starting QB on some other teams, if we just said \"here ya go\", I bet they\'d take him, and they\'d improve. Surely, even if you want him gone, you\'re in favor of getting something for him. This is a small point, but I am more swayed by arguments that imply we could get some advantage from trading him - cap space, draft picks, a rookie replacement, etc. I for one am never in favor of doing something \"no matter what the cost\" (and I\'m sure you actually agree). What if Bouman were our ONLY other option (I know he isn\'t but what if)? I would definitely want AB over Bouman - believe me.

(7) Thanks for the very level post with good points on each side. I see your position, and I hope you will explain it a bit more to me, since I have the confusions above about it. Nicely posted, FF.

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

saintswhodi

Frenzy, you\'re my hero. I love you man. :heartpump: You cut right to the heart of the matter.

Kool, I know you always want an explanation, but I think this is one where all included should just agree to disagree. Obviously some are seeing things in AB others are not, and that is fine. It\'s funny though how people who disapprove of AB have the SAME opinions of him but people who support him differ. Some use stats, some use the playoff win, some use noone better out there, some use potential and talent, some blame the rest of the team, but ALL who want him gone say the SAME thing. Now this could be a hive mentality, or a piling on, but it just seems odd to me that so many who want the same thing can see it the same way, yet the opposite argument have different criteria for basing their decision. Just ranting. But anyway Kool, I think this one calls for a handshake at the 50 yard line, and going in opposite directions. There are enough AB threads on here already to weigh in on. Of course if Frenzy chooses to address your fine questions, more power to you guys. Peace.

BrooksMustGo

Please, please, please bring back the monster \"Brooks\" thread to discuss this topic. I\'m dying to pull that one out of the mothballs. We had a virtual encyclopedia on all the different takes on Brooks. Great thread that received the JoeSam stamp of approval. (deep sigh)

But to the thread we have...

Frenzy, I feel you man. I agree with large parts of what you have to say.

JKool, as always a lucid post.

As a show of solidarity, I\'ll outline my own case against our current starting QB in order of importance in my own thinking.

1. He has an ever growing cap number. This year he is slated to jump up from 3.25 million to 5.5 million dollars. In 06 the number goes to 6.25 million and in 07 up to 7.25. Based on what we are seeing on the field from him, I don\'t think he\'s worth 5.5 million dollars.

----a. He is fishing for a new contract. Talking to the press about whether he will stay in NO while he still has 3 years on his contract seems peculiar to me. My own personal take on this is that he wants a deal like the ones recently given to McNabb, Manning, Culpepper and Vick. I fully expect him to hold out if the Saints refuse to give him some sort of 10 year mega deal.

-----b. He is a financial ticking time bomb. I think it\'s ruinous to allow him to hold this franchise hostage over his contract demands. I also think that it would be wiser to let some other team deal with his money requirements.

-----c. He tends to view success through paycheck. By this I mean, it seems that he\'s more interested in being compensated like a top QB than playing like an elite QB. Simply put, this franchise cannot afford him as he is.

2. His trade value will probably never be higher. At 28, I\'m really sure that some organization will become enamored with his stats. I also figure that someone with a huge ego will believe that Haslett\'s incompetance as a coach is what has held our current QB back all this time. I have no doubt that we could probably get a couple of picks and maybe a player out of a deal and given our needs on defense it might be important to do so before we really do need a full rebuild.

3. He is maddeningly inconsistent. He teases you with ability, he\'s the classic coach killer kind of player.

-----a. You can\'t count on him. He may win the game for you and he may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on you. It\'s impossible to tell when he\'s going to put you behind the 8 ball.

-----b. He makes bad decisions. The examples of this are legion. I\'ll just underscore the under hand pass to the Denver linebacker backed up on our own goal line as a classic example.

-----c. His mechanics and fundamentals are bad. 10 step drops, backing into the pass rush, throwing off the back foot, no touch, no screens, fumbled snaps, the center exchange, tripping himself down at the snap. For all the things he does well, you have to admit he does a LOT of things badly--at the worst possible time.

-----d. He doesn\'t read defenses well. He doesn\'t realize that when the safety or linebacker comes up on the line of scrimmage, they want a sack. Probably not a good time to put the back in motion to your other side. He\'s ok against zone teams, but always takes too long to let the WR get separation when the defense plays man.

-----e. He doesn\'t play the game intelligently. If we were playing flag football at the company picnic, then he would be my first pick. But I wouldn\'t pick him to be the starter for a pro team. He\'s a great sandlot player, but he struggles against teams that prepare for him.

-----f. No intangibles. Leadership, chutzpah, guts, whatever, he doesn\'t seem to have \"it\" that all the greats have.

4. Ego/Selfishness/Mouth.

-----a. Whatever he means to say (which I think is a kind way of putting it), comes out awfully wrong. He is notorious about saying the wrong thing to the press. Whenever the mic is on him, you can count on him to say something that alienates fans, team-mates, etc.

-----b. Me-First. There\'s a reason that people call him \"Leon\". The team is here for him, not him for the team.

-----c. Finger Pointing. He is never to blame when things go badly. He doesn\'t take responsibility for his own faults. It\'s one thing to play on a bad defense that cost the game, it\'s another thing to hear your QB (who may or may not have played well himself) blame the loss on your unit. His self-centeredness erodes the team concept.

-----d. Baselessly high opinion of himself. Whatever else one might say about him, I think we can all agree, he isn\'t an elite QB. He isn\'t the best to play the game. He isn\'t a great player being held back by an awful team. I think we can all agree that Archie could have been a great player if the rest of the team had even been decent. Our current QB has some of the best players this organization has ever had to work with. It rings false to suggest that guys like Deuce and Horn are holding him back.

-----e. He\'s a hard guy to pull for. He\'s a little bit like Bill Romonowski, Deion Sanders or Michael Irvin. Even when he is playing great, he still comes off like a jerk. He rubs some fans the wrong way.

-----f. He doesn\'t seem to care. Statements like, \"I\'m just here to do my job and leave\" and \"fake love\" make me question his heart and his will to win. I\'d rather not have a guy just putting in his time and phoning it in. As much as the language drives me crazy, I\'d rather have someone making Reggie White \"this is a team of destiny\" statements. Or things like the Patriots all being in it together.

Now after all this, do I want to just cut him and take the cap hit? Nope, I think the reason to get rid of him is financial. He costs too much for what he brings to the table. However, plenty of other teams are probably willing to deal for him and laugh all the way to the bank. I think he has great trade value now and with the cap savings we could sign 2-3 key players on defense and get serious about a playoff push.

Cutting him doesn\'t seem smart to me, dealing him does.

Anyway, that\'s my take on why we shouldn\'t keep our current QB.

http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

saintswhodi

BMG, great post. Very concise.

LKelley67

a fine thread. wouldn\'t it be interesting to see how loomis would respond. beyond the bs and covering his rear i somehow think we wouldn\'t be impressed. i wish we had more insight into what the philosophy of the franchise, specifically the front office, is. again though, i think we might feel worse if we did. not a rant on the front office here. it is just that i find so much logic and continuity of thought (i do see the ab mr. wonderful/cut him at all costs chasm narrowing) here on some of these things that it makes me i wonder if such is there or if they are just along for the yacht ride.

JKool

Whodi,

(1) As always,

(2) Since most people agree on the \"facts\" about AB, it is my thesis that the difference between the keep Brooks and the get rid of Brooks camp is mostly a difference in risk aversion. Those of us who are interested in keeping him are averse to the high risk that might entail (a worse player, etc). Of course, I\'m in the camp that has agreed with BMG\'s financial argument - if we can get a replacement that appears to us to be of roughly the same ability (given our risk averseness) and some other benefits, I say go for it. Those of you who are in the get rid of Brooks camp appear to be much less risk averse - yourself being a prime example. I think this is where the handshake at the 50 is appropriate. I don\'t think that arguing over whether or not some poster\'s personality should be adjusted is worth while. On the other hand, I have learned a lot from these discussions, and just because no argument that has been conclusive is forthcoming, I think my view is MUCH better having discussed it, in particular with you and BMG in this case.

(3) I\'m sorry I got frustrated last week, I swear it was mostly outside stuff. You da man.

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

JKool

BMG, mad props buddy. That is a fine summary.

While I agree with almost all that you\'ve said (in particular your points 1 and 2) and I, a long time ago, agreed that the financial argument is the strongest I\'ve heard for getting rid of Brooks, I have to cavil with a few of your points:

3b - I think you should add that how bad the mistakes are matters. There are few starting NFL QBs who are merely managers of the game that people can get excited about. As a result, many QBs make dumb mistakes - again, Farve is an example of this. The manager QB is the guy who won\'t lose you the game, but most of the time he won\'t win it either (Brady is one guy who I think can do both, but he is a rarity). Thus, I think you could make this point more strongly, and I also think it could be a weakness of your argument (but we\'d have to investigate it more thoroughly).

3c - This is not only AB\'s fault. Coaching has not helped him here. While I agree that this may be symptomatic of his \"dumbness\", it may also be due to coddling and/or poor coaching. I feel it is difficult to say how much of this is really on AB himself.

3f - I actually disagree here. There are two intangibles that Brooks does have (though, I agree that for the most you are right on this point): (1) he is actually pretty darn tough - he takes a lickin\' and keeps on tickin\', and (2) he is a threat to gamble. On point (2), I believe it is the coaches fault that teams aren\'t affraid of Brooks making plays with his feet. That first season, teams had a bit more trouble with Brooks, as he \"improvised\" more often, adding a more Vick-like dimension to our offense. That appears to be gone, and I think that is our loss - I honestly believe this is a coaching (game planning) error.

4c - I take your point here, but I feel like people can\'t have it both ways. Either you think that Brooks should get up on people and lead - thus, sometimes calling guys out (even when he had a bad game), or you think that he should shoulder all the blame. A really good leader, which Brooks is not, would do both. However, during all those \"leadership\" discussions, it was often pointed out that Brooks didn\'t challenge others to be better - then, when he does it, he\'s doing something wrong? This point needs to be clarified, since it appears that many have contradicted themselves here - I feel like this may be two or three separate points. I hope you can see what I\'m getting at here, since a greater diagnosis might be possible.

It is still my view that while 1&2 (and I very much enjoyed 4e) are good points, they are only really going to be convincing when a good alternative to AB is presented.

Don\'t take that the wrong way, I know a number of candidates have been mentioned - other than Brees or perhaps a rookie (and I\'d need some serious convincing), I\'m mostly unimpressed.

I want a QB who wins games, not one of those \"manager\" types; I just don\'t think our running game (mostly due to the Oline) or defense is strong enough to have that kind of QB.

Note my point about \"risk aversion\" in my post to Whodi to get a better feel for my point (beyond the problems with our OLine and D) here.

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

JKool

PS - I don\'t think the \"get rid of Brooks\" camp has any greater similarity in view or argument than the \"keep Brooks\" camp, just for the record.

BnB, that\'s three...