saintswhodi

And I\'m willing to accept that, but the simple truth for me is I AM NOT just going off this year. I am going off year after year after year. Since Deuce has been here he hasn\'t been criticized, UNTIL THIS YEAR. AB has been criticized pretty much EVERY year. It\'s always something. The main difference between you and I when it comes to the two is, you feel SOMETHING ELSE has continually hampered AB year after year after year. I just can not believe an NFL QB would have that kind of run of bad luck that random things outside his control effect his efficiency for 4 straight years. I just CAN NOT get behind that. Deuce on the other hand, since he has been a starter WAS NOT questioned. Had the offense not be changed, I believe we would have seen a much different Deuce. I am not giving EITHER a pass on this year no matter what the factors, but the fact is this is the first year Deuce was questioned and the 3rd or 4th in a row for AB, well, that tends to make my decision on who i\'d rather keep.

GumboBC

saintwhodi--

And I\'m willing to accept what you think may be true. And i\'m being honest. I have my doubts about Brooks.

Like you say, Brooks has had an assortment of problems from year to year.

But, to me, this is the only way I can look at it.

Brooks has been a starter for 4 years.

The first year was a learning year. No matter what his problems were rookie QB get a free pass. And that\'s just the way it is unless they suck so bad there\'s no hope. That wasn\'t the case with Brooks his first year.

The second year should be a year for improvement. Well, Brooks was doing fine and he was improving and we posted a 8-3 (or something like that) to start the season. Then Brooks got his shoulder hurt and Deuce got hurt. Things went down hill after that and we couldn\'t win a game and get in the playoffs. That\'s what started all this Brooks\' criticism in the first place........IMO!! But, it was far from being all Brooks fault.

Then there was last year. Brooks had a pro-bowl year and got voted to the pro-bowl as an alternate. But his fumbling was bad and many of his fumbles were of the \"mystery\" variety. And when you add his fumbling from last year to the fact that we only needed to win one game the year before to make the playoffs.....well........ it didn\'t sit well with many fans.

Then there was this year. Brooks played about average. Not great, not terrible. And we only won 8-games. But, again, Brooks play or our record wasn\'t all on Brooks. I don\'t think there\'s anyone who didn\'t see our offensive line and our terrible 32nd ranked defense. How many games do folks expect Brooks and the Saints to win with the WORST defense in the NFL? Seriousy?

If I told you we would have the WORST defense in the NFL next year.........how many games would you expect us to win. Honestly?

But ..... the bottom line is this: Because we have a terrible defense, Brooks must play almost perfect for us to win.

And there\'s a lot of things that have to happen to be one of the highest scoring offenses in the NFL.

So, while you don\'t think there are reasons for Brooks every year. I do see reasons.

But, I\'ll concede.... Brooks has done some things that have left doubt in my mind if he will be able to be one of the better QBs in the league.

[Edited on 3/2/2005 by GumboBC]

saintswhodi

Not to get on this again, but the Colts had the 29th ranked defense in the league and they WERE the worst defense in the league until we played Minnesota and our defense got absolutely creamed. So for half a year AB DID NOT have the worst D in the league. KC was up there too. But then that lends to an argument about the O-line and such and it is so circular as to be annoying to most. Minny also had the 28th ranked D. The difference between us and them? 13 yards to Indy and 15 yards to Minny per game. Points per game there were 4 teams worse, and Minny, St. Louis, Green Bay, and Seattle were all within 3 points of us. On the flip side, Miami had the number 7 defense in the league. So I fail to see how defense hampered us THAT much when a team picking top 2 in the draft was # seven. Also Buffalo and Washington 2 and 3 in D didn;t make the playoffs. As well as Tampa at 5. That\'s why I never really buy that argument. Temas with D\'s just as bad did better, and teams with D\'s GREATLY BETTER didn\'t. The x factor has to come in somewhere. That x factor is QB. All of those teams with the high defenses have suspect QB, like us. All those teams with the bad defenses like us don\'t have suspect QBs. By saying that I mean there is not one we wouldn\'t trade our QB for right now. So like the drops argument, I am not buying the defense killing us argument either. Not when there is obvious eveidence to the contrary. Bit like I said before, it\'s all good. We all have our different measures, and that\'s what keeps this forum hopping.

[Edited on 3/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

GumboBC

saintwhodi --

We have a big fundamental difference as it relates to DEFENSES and WINNING.

But, when 2 folks have BIG differences, that\'s usually when the MOST progress can be made in forming an understanding.

Couple of things here:

1. Throwing all defensive \"stats\" out the window.... I think just by watching our defense for the first 12 games showed we were aboslutely the worst defense in the NFL. Even with the BIG improvement over the last 4 weeks, they still ranked last in the NFL.

2. Yeah, the Colts defense was bad. But they created a lot of turnovers and they were a better defense than the Saints.

The Colts gave up 21.9 pts per game and we gave up 25.3 pts per game. That\'s 3.5 pts difference per game. And in the NFL, where games are OFTEN decided by 3 points or less... that\'s a huge difference.

Also, because the Colts scored so quick and often, that gave the opposing offense more chances to score and tthe Colts defense still held other teams to less points than the Saints.

3. Yeah, the Vikings defense was bad. And they only won 8 games. Donte had a better year than Brooks. But, he had one of the best offensive lines in the NFL and the best receiver in the NFL. And his 2nd receiver is one of the better 2nd receivers in the game. And the Vikings running game was MUCH better than ours this year.

The bottom line is: It\'s hard to win with the worst defense in the NFL. No matter what team you are. It can be done, but you better be one of the highest scoring offenses the NFL has ever had..ala..the Colts, Vikings, or Rams.

But, again, you need much more than a good QB for that to happen.

It seems to me, and I may be wrong, but, it seems you are suggesting if we had another QB that we would have been a very good playoff team despite the fact that we had the 26th ranked running game, 32nd ranked defense, and one of the worst offensive lines in the league?

A.) 32nd ranked defense.
B.) 26th ranked running game.
C.) One of the worst offensive lines in the NFL.

That\'s a lot to overcome.

So.......while you can point out other teams that went to the playoffs that had a bad defense.......did they have all of these?

A.) 32nd ranked defense.
B.) 26th ranked running game.
C.) One of the worst offensive lines in the NFL.

I think we were LUCKY to win 8 games. Which is the same thing I said last year when we had that sucky defense and ALL of the injuries.

ScottyRo

JK, I considered this but wasn\'t going to bring it up unless someone else did. First, if a QB is in the throwing motion it\'s an incomplete pass, not a fumble (if called correctly which doen\'ts ever happen in favor of N.O. but that\'s another thread).

I\'ll grant you to some degree that a QB gets hit unexpectedly more often than does a RB, if you\'ll grant that force of RBs hits are generally higher because the RB and defender are often going completely opposite directions whereas the Qb is usually standing still or being caught from behind. That difference should even out the linear disadvantage to the QB you mentioned above.

Since we\'re getting almost nowhere, I\'ll add another factor. Hits per touch.

RBs have much higher likeihood of being hit when they touch the ball than do QBs. Where a RB gets hit probably 99.5% of the time when he touches the ball (yes, I made that up myself based on nothing but my opinion), the QB (assuming a 50-50 pass-ruch ratio) is automatically at only 50%. Then take into account that on that 50% he throws completions, throws incompletions, and slides all without getting hit while holding the ball. (I think it\'s important to say that hits that occur after he releases the ball should not count as they cannot possibly cause him to fumble at that point).

So, does a QB get hit only 5 or 10 % of the time when he touches the ball as opposed to 99.5%? I think any additional vulnerability a QB may have is at a minimum evened out by the disaprity of hits per touch if not skewed more to the RBs favor. Meaning the RB should fumble more per touch in comparison to a QB.

I will say that it is my understanding that a QB is credited with a fumble on the hand-off exchange until the RB is considered to have taken possession. Am I wrong?

GumboBC

Scotty --

All of that makes for an interesting read. But, unfortunately, I can\'t agree with too much of it.

Basically, I think we are all making this matter much more complicated than it is.


First things first, Scotty:

1. QBs usually lead their teams in fumbles every year. I don\'t know why (well, I do, but to save an arguement, I\'ll leave it out) but it\'s a FACT that they do. I\'ve looked it up in the past and you can look it up if ya want.

2. Runningbacks are expected to hold on to the ball no matter how many times or how hard they are hit. If not, then.......they will be pulled out of the game usually. See Tiki Barber as an example.

3. Brooks has fumbled too much. He needs to cut it out. But he didn\'t do bad on his fumbling this year. It was really only one year he had this problem.

4. I don\'t think Decue\'s fumbles are that big of a problem.

saintswhodi

Gumbo, we have been through this. Minny didn\'t have Moss for 8 games. I believe they would have won MORE games with their bad D had theyhad a healthy Moss. Imagine Brooks playing without Horn for 8 games. Now imagine it again. Not pretty the first or the second time. Also, Bulger missed two games for the Rams and they got killed cause of their QB. Had he played in those, I would grant them at least one more win against Arizona, making them 9-7, and our senseless attempt to get to he playoffs would have been moot.

Again, St. Louis had 18 more rushing yards than us. And we didn\'t have Deuce for 3 weeks and he played hurt several others. Minny had 217 more rushing yards than us. Think a healthy Deuce can get that in 3 or 4 games? Indy 246 more yards. Again, give me a healthy Deuce all year and I think we beat all those easily.

So we have the better line argument again. Minny\'s line IS NOT better than ours. No way no how. They have one stud, McKinnie, who is very suspect and we have one stud, LeCharles. The Rams DEFINITELY do not have a better line. At all. Add to that Pace being hurt, well no way. Yeah Indy\'s is better, but they have a QB who knows how to get rid of the ball, so that may help. Again, the main difference is at QB.

Lastly on takeaways, Indy was best in the league. But we were WAY better than Minny, St. Louis, and Denver and Green Bay. So AGAIN, biggest difference, QB. I rest my case.

GumboBC

saintwhodi -

I never expected to change your mind. And I\'m sure you felt the same way about me....

But, it\'s always interesting to hear the other side.

I know where you are coming from.


You basically think Brooks is our biggest problem. I think..

And I basically think the defense and the offensive line are the big problems.

So, do we go QB with our first pick? J/K :P

We\'ll just have to agree to disagree and battle it out another time.

Oh, and there will be another time..........

ScottyRo

Gumbo, basically all of this is theoretical. Logic would seem to indicate based on our discussions that the RB should fumble more often. Reality, according to your research, indicates otherwise. I can agree to that.

I think this disparity lies in the fact that fumbles are not common occurences, even by AB. You can\'t say with certainty that any set of circumstances will cause a fumble even though you might expect one more often in certain circumstances. Since they are rare, it is hard to identify the factors. Perhaps the QB position is that much more dangerous from a fumbling standpoint.

saintswhodi

Yes sir there will be another time, I would say week 1 next season is the most obvious time, butI am certain it will be sooner.