saintswhodi

No, I go wih the guy who has the least talent but puts up similar #s as AB. Jake has had a good running game the past 2 years, well guess what, the two years before this one so has AB. Jake\'s receivers ARE NOT as good as AB\'s especially with the retirement of McCaffrey and Sharpe and guess what, he posts better numbers than AB. He may be inconsistent, but I would count on him more than I would count on AB. He took a for crap Cardinals team to the playoffs, AB can\'t do it WITH talent. So if me seeing the guy as better is digging in cause I disagree with your assessment of him, then dig dig dig. Jake at least is still willing to scramble if his teams needs it as well. This I gotta be a pocket passer at all times crap from AB is getting dumb.

JKool

I guess we disagree on Jake. I don\'t think that\'s a big deal, though.

Let me ask you this: what would could as evidence that with a running game and a defense a \"poor\" QB could succeed?

It seems to me that:
(1) You\'ve set it up so there can be no counter-example. A QB with a running game and a D will have better stats (since I think that the passing game is related to a strong running game and a strong D), generally than one without, so you\'ll just say of whomever anyone puts forward as an example that they aren\'t \"poor\".
AND
(2) No one will have all the same problems and stats as AB, so you\'ll just say that the comparison can\'t be made.

Thus, \"AB + good running game + good D = never win\" can never be contested (in fact, it seems impossible to contest based on how you evaluate QB comparisons), since there is NO ONE who can be substituted for AB.

In science that is called an insulating strategy - nothing can show that your theory is false - and it isn\'t good form.

[Edited on 7/2/2005 by JKool]

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

saintswhodi

If nothing can show it as false, then that must be the truth right? I guess I don\'t understand. When all the falsehoods are taking out of an argument, then that leaves the truth, or so I was taught.

The evidence that a poor QB can succeed with a running game and D is the Superbowl by the Ravens, probably the only one of its kind. It\'s an anomaly. It does not happen enough to warrant an \"it could happen\" discussion. That\'s like saying the immaculate reception could happen again and believing it. Sure it could, but some things are once in a lifetime. The thing about dilfer though is he had no receivers worth anything, yet he didn\'t committ the dumb mistakes. HE managed the game, which is all he had to do. HE didn\'t lead the league in team killing statistics. But again, it was an anomaly.

Also, I never said players can\'t be compared to AB, I just haven\'t found too many viable ones that are in similar situations with AB. The ones I do put forward have already been discussed in length. So just because a new QB is introduced it does not make that QBs situation the same. I don\'t think that eliminates disagreement, but the QBs who are in similar situations have outperformed AB in every way(Culpepper, Bulger). That\'s my measure.

Ab + good running game + adequate defense was the scenario last year as I outlined in another thread. So it HAS BEEN PROVEN that even with the good running game and better than average D AB still can not get it done. The reverse HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. So I guess it is hard to argue against a proven point with a hope or a belief. That\'s like saying \"It is a fact there are other planets in the galaxy\" which is proven and then trying to say \"There are aliens cause there are other planets\" with no proof.

JKool

Whodi,

No.

It cannot be proven that it is false that there is a green, mutant alien on some planet in a very distant galaxy - does that make it true? It most certainly doesn\'t. I can give better examples, but I thought that one was fun.

What makes something true is that the world is one way or another (that is, what makes it true that I\'m typing at my computer is that I AM actually typing at my computer - that is kind of a poor way to put it, but truth is a question for a different thread). It is very hard to determine what is true, not very easy.

That can\'t be a proof since it assumes that next year\'s AB is IDENTICAL IN EVERY FOOTBALL RESPECT to last year\'s AB, which is false by your own admission (one year it was fumbles, the next it was turnovers in the red zone, etc.). Thus, no proof.

Furthermore, and I am not alone in this belief, there is some reason to believe that AB has improved over the years. Thus, instead of being identical he should be, even if only marginally, better. I know you don\'t agree, but we\'ve been unable to convince each other otherwise, and I don\'t suspect we will be able to.

Why would you accuse me of making an argument from ignorance? I did no such thing. I stated reasons for all my beliefs on this matter, even if you didn\'t agree with them. It is not like I infered from NOTHING that AB could get it done with a better line and a better defense (e.g. there are aliens in our solar system). Sheesh.

Here is an example of an insulating strategy:
No Linebacker will ever be as good as Rickey Jackson.
Someone says: LT was as good or better.
Reply: But Rickey played on worse teams with worse records.
Counter: One Year the Giants were almost as bad.
Reply: Did you say ALMOST. No proof.

Notice that is silly. Either things that are relevantly similar BUT NOT IDENTICAL can be compared or they cannot. If they cannot, then why bother, since NOTHING could change that person\'s mind. Btw, don\'t contest the facts in this last example, since I just made it up and I didn\'t check the facts - just make up an example you like (it shouldn\'t be too hard), if you don\'t like this one. I\'m sure you see the point.

Finally, fine point on the Ravens. I wish I\'d thought of that example. I will think on it.

[Edited on 8/2/2005 by JKool]

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

saintswhodi

As arguments go, somethimes they last too long. I think this one has out-lived it\'s shelf-life as the particulars are being drowned out by the metaphors, funny as they are. So I will say this, while I appreciate the effort you put forth trying to knock some middle of the road into my get rid of AB brain, I have yet to be convinced enough to believe he could be anything but middling. On the flip side, I am sure I have done just as little to convince you we should get rid of him. I can accept that. But we are knocking ourselves out here. So I say this, if the D improves next year, and the line improves, and AB is just as crap as always, will you then, after 5 years straight of no playoffs, be ready for him to go? When he is still making dumb comments? Or how about this? What if he demands a raise this off-season? Do you think we should be rid of him at that point? I will answer one for you. If AB took a pay cut for the next season and decided he would let his performance earn him a new salary, I would shetup about him that very minute. I can accept the mistakes of a lower salaried humble player. Just some food for thought.

JKool

Whodi,

I\'m inclined to agree with you that some of this is needlessly agravating and seems to make little progress.

I am willing to let AB go this year, though. I don\'t know if I was \"convinced\" of that, but I do think it now that many of us have discussed it (and not so much before).

I\'m willing to let him go for Brees or someone who is fairly clearly better. But not for any of the other names that have been bandied about as available, since they don\'t seem to me clearly better.

I am not willing to let him go for a rookie, since according to my analysis it is very unlikely a rookie could really help us more than AB at his current level for at least a year.

If Brooks sucks it up again this year, I say ditch him. Certainly the OLine and Defense can\'t get much worse. However, what it means to \"suck it up\", I\'d bet is an open question. I don\'t consider an offense that can win 8 games with the worst D in the league \"sucking\", and since I can\'t really see how to individually rate AB\'s role in the offense (or lack of role) in any real way, I guess I\'d just have to say he\'s part of our O that managed 8 wins despite some serious crap around them. That said, if we don\'t make the playoffs again, I\'m pretty happy to let AB go - if a reasonable (and I really just mean merely reasonable) replacement can be found.

If he holds out, I don\'t know what I think. That is a good question, and I will think on it.

I agree to set this aside for awhile. Perhaps some new stuff will come to light - a good QB suddenly becomes available, AB holds out, there is good cap sense reason to let him slide, etc. - until then I can agree with you to set this aside.

I have enjoyed this palaver very much. Thanks for the food for though.

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

saintfan

Doesn\'t matter that I\'ve screamed that from the highest Mountain, \'cause nobody is listening anyway.

Danno

I am. You must be posting it in one of the 8 zillion AB threads. That probably explains why you haven\'t seen me.

Its funy. This topic was about bad O-line play and the VERY FIRST REPLY is about AB, then it snowballs.

This is complete BS!

GumboBC

Yeah, it is complete BS.

I\'ll be the first one to admit I let myself become entrenched in these AB debates.

But, even I\'m tired of it.....

Brooks is a big part of this team and there\'s nothing wrong with discussing him. And I believe because it\'s the offseason, it gives some of us something to talk about.

However, Brooks doesn\'t need to be a part of every thread that is started.

No one wants to come to a thread about the offensive line and hear all of this Brooks crap.

I\'ve started MANY threads that have nothing to do with Aaron Brooks and there are a few folks who want to talk about nothing but Brooks.

I know the mods are tired of it. And I know the mods want good intelligent discussion on this board instead of the same old tired AB discussions.

I\'m not saying I\'m never going to talk about Brooks. But, I\'m not going to respond to a post about Brooks when the thread had nothing to do with Brooks.

If someone wants to talk about Brooks, keep it in a thread that has something to do with Brooks!!

Here\'s what\'s been blamed on Brooks :

1. Screen Pass: Brooks\' fault.
2. Can\'t block blitz: Brooks can\'t recongnize a blitz.
3. Poor Defense: Brooks can\'t keep the offense on the field long enough.
4. Dropped Passes: Brooks isn\'t accurate.
5. 8-8 record: Mainly due to lack of leadership.

To some folks, EVERYthing is Brooks\' fault.

Folks, we get it. We get some of you think EVERYthing is Brooks\' fault. But, we don\'t need to hear it in every post. Discuss something else that are related the the problems the Saints have.







[Edited on 8/2/2005 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 8/2/2005 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 8/2/2005 by GumboBC]

saintswhodi

Wait, so the point of all this is, threads are gonna be made that DEFLECT ANY BLAME FROM BROOKS by belittling the players around him and and if you try to assign ANY of that to Brooks, you can\'t stop talking about Brooks and are ruining the discussion? Unreal. How many times in a BROOKS THREAD do people come in and say no it\'s the line and it\'s the dropped passes and penalties and defense? Be for real. You can\'t have it both ways. So if Brooks can\'t be discussed in an OBVIOUS don\'t blame Brooks thread, when someone starts an AB thread, NOONE should come in and Discuss ANYTHING BUT AB. No line, no dropped passes, nothing else. Fair?