another i cant hepp it thread

[WhoDat]

What\'s sad is that for all this time, we\'ve been arguing about the wrong thing when it comes to AB. I just learned a lot over in another thread. I thought I would share it with you all.

Whodat

First, football players have probably done more to bastardize the term \"businessman\" than any other group on the planet, IMO. Yes, football is a business, and they are paid for their services. But holding out and whining and crying about more money doesn\'t make you a businessman...

That\'s how I feel about AB. He\'s a large investment that hasn\'t paid off. It goes back to the same issue on which we always seem to disagree - when is enough enough?...

Look, I\'m not saying that the o-line, WRs, RBs, etc. didn\'t affect AB this year. Of course they did. But I expect a 6th year Pro with 4.5 years experience as a starter and being paid top 10 money to be able to deal with those things better than AB. You seem to disagree. Fine.

Billy

How can you even suggest such a thing? Given the fact that football organizations reguarly screw the players over every chance they get, if I were a player, I would be looking out for myself and let the team worry about themselves. ...

Spare me all this stuff about looking at the situation from an owner\'s point of view. Brooks\' salary hasn\'t hindered our cap number one bit. In fact, Benson needs to shell out a little more money. Brooks got what he could and whether you or anyone else thinks it\'s too much is irrelevant. I suppose you would have turned the money down if you had been in Brooks\' shoes. Yeah, right!!

Whodat

I don\'t get it Billy. Do you just get angry and not think? Seriously. By this exact logic, then you shouldn\'t give a rats a$$ whether Joe Horn get Marvin Harrison money, right? You\'re not looking at it from the owner\'s point of view huh? So we could pay Brooks $100 million and it would be OK? Jonathan Sullivan\'s contract doesn\'t bother you?

Billy

I\'m not attacking you or anything. But, you seem to only look at one side of an issue. You have some good points here and there, but you totally overlook the other side of the arguement...

What about the players side of the arguement? You never even talked about that!!

NFL owners and GMs are looking out for themselves. They really don\'t have the players best interest in mind. The only reason they give a player more money is because the HAVE to!!

Players sign contracts that a team will not honor if a player isn\'t performing the way they think he should. They will cut that player in a New York second!! They don\'t give a damn about honoring that contract.

It\'s \"what have you done for me lately.\"

What\'s fair about that? The player and the team agrees to a contract and the TEAM does NOT honor it. Is that fair, WhoDat? Is that ethical?

So, when a player thinks he isn\'t getting paid enough and holds out - you feel sorry for the TEAM?

Like I said, spare me \"looking at it from a TEAM standpoint.\"

I really don\'t get you, WhoDat. You\'re a bright guy. But, you seem to have a problem looking at the BIG PICTURE.

So the REAL issue here is whether AB is happy with his contract. If he is, then who cares how it effects the team? Gotta look out for number one and all. Let\'s stop talking about stats and leadership, etc. Where does AB live? What kind of car does he drive? These are the important questions that need answering.

[saintswhodi]

:rollinglaugh:

[JKool]

Maybe that\'s the problem. Everyone seems to agree on most things EXCEPT Aaron Brooks and his job security. Therefore we fight, point out the same tired sides of the argument, degenerate to name-calling, and eventually reach the same impasse EVERY TIME.

Here is my diagnosis and I discovered it in this very discussion of AB. I think I learned something, even though this is the millionth time I\'ve been in such a debate (and I don\'t think it was an impasse):

My point earlier is that it is easy to come to believe that someone is defending Brooks, when merely they are pointing out that blame/praise comes in degrees and is often spread out accross several players at the same time. Thus, saying the OLine sucks is not a defense of Brooks, so much as it is pointing out that the blame for some plays/things is spread out over the QB-OLine group. It is sometimes hard to tease out on which part of that group most of the blame falls, other times it is easy (like some of the cases you pointed out - e.g. backward pass). This is true not just for the QB-OL pair but many other groupings and combinations - that is because it is a team game. For example a pass over the middle. Is that the MLBs fault, the SS fault the LBs as a group\'s fault, the LB-S grouping that is to blame? It is hard to say; sometimes it is obvious, the trailing LB in coverage is to blame, but if it is a zone, it is hard to say which guy should have been rotating, and so on.

Thus, I\'m a bit confused by the reaction of some when they say, you defend Brooks at all costs, when all the other was doing is pointing out this fact about blame distributions.

I just don\'t think a lot of things are that obviously cut and dried.

There appear to be three reasons Brooks\' conversations degenerate:
(1) It is frustrating to come up against tough opposition, when it seems to one that one is obviously right.
(2) It is VERY difficult to determine the blame distribution in MANY (though not all) cases.
(3) Different posters\' have differing levels of risk aversion. Thus, certain alternate options (e.g. for the replacement of Brooks) seem more or less appealing on grounds that are difficult or impossible to argue.

Here is what does NOT cause these discussions to degenerate:
(1) Facts. No one is confused about those. Rarely, if ever, is some fact presented that one person or another wasn\'t aware of.
(2) Simple pride or fear of being wrong. Most smart people know that they could be wrong - there could be an error in their reasoning, an error in their facts, or even an error in their observations. When that happens, smart people admit they were wrong and change their view. I\'ve encountered very few people here at B&G (at least the regulars) who aren\'t smart in this way. I really don\'t think people strongly argue one point or another merely to save face.

I consider this idea of \"blame distributions\" an interesting result of THIS discussion of AB. Thus, I don\'t buy this idea that nothing fruitful ever comes from the debate. I also don\'t buy the idea that it is two stubborn sides (as I belive there are as many sides as there are posters) butting heads again and again.

[Edited on 20/2/2005 by JKool]

[mutineer10]

I consider this idea of \"blame distributions\" an interesting result of THIS discussion of AB. Thus, I don\'t buy this idea that nothing fruitful ever comes from the debate. I also don\'t buy the idea that it is two stubborn sides (as I belive there are as many sides as there are posters) butting heads again and again.

Agreed, and I was probably being a little short-sighted in that previous post. It\'s a bit frustrating ... this whole thing.

Those \"haters\" among us DO realize this team has other issues, we simply believe AB is part of that problem.

We\'re commonly rebuffed with, \"Well, who are we gonna get to replace him?\" A fair and valid question. Unfortunately, when we respond with the list of usual suspects - or someone new for that matter - we\'re commonly told how disastrous the consequences would be. Many of us \"haters\" just think we could get someone of AB\'s caliber cheaper, so why not do that and spend the money on improvements elsewhere?

There are positive results to the perpetual AB debate, and this thread has been one of the few to prove that. I suppose I was throwing out a pre-emptive ... my fault. I\'ve never said AB doesn\'t have his merits ... only that we could get the same results for less cash.

If a 12-pack of Coke is $5.00 and a 12-pack of Pepsi is $2.50, are you gonna get the Coke - and go home hungry - or grab the Pepsi and a bag of Doritos? I\'m gonna be eating some chips, myself ... but folks may do as they like.

:shrug: