New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com - another i cant hepp it thread

Whodi, I\'m fine with dropping the idea of being a \"moderate\". That sounded like a pretty good argument to me.

Here are the dimensions on which people should be evaluated in terms of their response to Brooks:

1. Shoud he go right now: yes/no
2. He is a cancer: yes/no
3. The offensive losses are all on Brooks: yes/no
4. The entire team\'s losses are all on Brooks: yes/no
5. Brooks should be evaluated in terms of his role on the TEAM: yes/no
6. Brooks says dumb things: yes/no
7. Some of Brooks stats speak to some skill: yes/no
8. Some of Brooks mistakes speak to his lack of skill: yes/no
9. So on and so on and so on.

That makes me suspect there are at least 16 different positions on Brooks, make it 24 if you at \"sort of\" to the yes and no responses. For every addtional dimension that we add, there will be at least 2 more possible positions.

I don\'t uderstand why we are trying to lump people into categories, which is what I thought you successfully argued against?

As for me, I think that Brooks can go if a viable alternative is acquired, we can make better use of his cap number, he is CERTAINLY going to hold out, or we can get 2-3 first or second round picks for him (I\'d probably be willing to come down significantly on this, but I thought I\'d start high). There are probably a bunch of other conditions under which I\'d let him go. I don\'t think any of that says whether or not I love or hate Brooks. Those are just the kind of conditions that I would want before I let him go.

I don\'t see being frustrated with him as a reason to let him go. Heck, I get frustrated with Charles Grant and Bentely, but I\'m not going to call for their heads.

I\'m a bit shocked that you think that those who\'ve defended Brooks here aren\'t looking at the facts. I believe that both sides are aware of the facts (the turnovers, the passing yards, the mistakes, the successes). I just don\'t get it. So far, no one has presented a fact that the others weren\'t aware of.

It is still my thesis that risk aversion is playing a role. The other factor, I\'m now convinced, is the amount of blame/praise people think one guy should get even in this team game.

Some people think the blame/praise relation works a bit oddly on my view. Here is what makes sense to me: football is a team game - to single out the praise or blame assigned to one player, or even one unit, you must carefully watch the game, pour over the stats, look at what players do in every part of the game, look at how they influence those around them, and so on.

Here is the idea: Brooks pazzed for a butt-load of yards, but does anyone think that Horn doesn\'t share some of the praise for that? Certainly he does. If the running game is succeeding in spades, that is in part because the other team is afraid of the passiing game. If the passing game is succeeding, that is in part because of the running game. The defense is bad? Part of the blame is on the offense! The offense is struggling? Part of the blame is on the defense.

For some reason though, some people seem to think that the QB is different. He gets blame directly, without looking at the other areas of the team that influence how well (or how poorly) he will play. That is odd. Sure, some things are totally his fault, but some success are due to him only as well. Furthermore, some of his successes are concealed in the stats because they are masked by others\' successes, and, in turn, some of his failures are masked by other parts of the team. Is that shocking?!

It is this idea that blame and praise in a team game cannot go straight to one player, one unit, or even one coach without passing through a whole bunch of possible filters (that should be there, because that is how team sports work), is what generates a lot of heated discussion here. People are trying to work out which filters are ok and which aren\'t.

However, accusing someone of something because they acknowledge the filter? I don\'t get that.

Someone seemed to imply that the only reason to defend Brooks was to save face. That is because one time somewhere you said you liked him, you must defend him until you die or look bad. Who thinks that way? I don\'t. If I was wrong, I\'ll happily change my mind.

The only reason I defend Brooks is because the arguments against him, while good, are not conclusive and since they are posted over and over and over again, I see no reason to join that side of the dispute.

Finally,

Quote:

If he shuts his mouth next year and puts up his stats WITHOUT the stupid mistakes, don\'t you think we wouldn\'t have anything to say?

I thought you believed that would be IMPOSSIBLE? I believe you when you say this Whodi, but I can see how, just as you did to those on the other side, someone might get the idea that you hate Brooks. You are so impassioned about making people who defend him at all explain themselves, you appear to call them irrational, and you seem to get really worked up about anyone who says anything that will defend him, I see how someone could think you hate him. I know you don\'t, but it isn\'t always obvious to the passing observer. You made the same point to me: roughly, you called me a Brooks lover because I was defending him somewhat stubbornly - and you know I am not.

[Edited on 19/2/2005 by JKool]