another i cant hepp it thread
 

We would? Didn\'t someone suggest we should trade AB for the Raven\'s Waterboy?

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Whodi, you have an odd way of reading what other people are saying. Everyone agrees that Brooks is a problem. What they disagree on is how big a problem he is. Does that not make sense? Certainly, being a player in a team game does not make being good or bad a merely yes/no proposition? It is more of a better or worse thing.

I just don\'t understand how you\'re seeing what other people are saying as this: Brooks is faultless. I don\'t get it.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Whodi --

is 20 to 30 points a game what you\'d consider to be enough to win? If our defense was able to stop ANYBODY would the Saints have made the playoffs last year and the year before? When our defense slips up and plays decent we win a lot don\'t we? Go figure.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

When someone thinks these thing can be validated,

and sees nothing wrong with this, there is truly no hope. I respect both you guys, and maybe you can live with a guy who leads the league in horrible stats, but I can\'t. Says nothing about me, says nothing about you guys, just shows where we are willing to draw the line. Obviously you both have more patience than me, and I applaud that. But since neither of you answered my first challenge here is another, go to another board, don\'t mention AB, and just ask the people there if they want a QB who leads the league in these stats. You can throw in his passing numbers if you like if that will make him look better, but just ask fans of teams other than the Saints if they want that in their QB. The Miami fans have spoken, see if you can get some more. I will be interested in what other teams fans have to say, although I already know.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Whodi, I honestly just don\'t understand your point. I did read what you\'d said to SF.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

No one thinks those can be validated. Whodi, you\'re getting upset for no reason. AGAIN, we agree with you on that. What we disagree with is what follows from those things, the extent to which those belong solely on the QB, and so on.

What is wrong with that?

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Last year(2003) we averaged 21.2 points per game and our defense gave up 20.4. Think Mr. lead the league in fumbles cost us some games? I know he cost us the Tampa game last year with his four fumbles. two when he wasn\'t touched. Where do we average 30 points per game? We aren\'t even close. Think Mr. Lead the league in red zone turnovers had something to do with that this year? If you turn the ball ove rin the red zone, you don\'t score. That\'s football. HE LEAD THE LEAGUE. Do you realize how many offensive players there are in the league? Do you realize how many people you have to beat out to lead the league in lost fumbles? And to do it in BACK TO BACK YEARS? Even Vegas can\'t count odds that high. Come on.

[Edited on 17/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Whodi, I know that you think that watching the games matters as much as the stats. Why is that? Here is my guess: because stats only tell one part of the story. Imagine a QB who throws only 10 passes before he is K.O.ed by an wicked hit. Say nine of those passes are completed for 45 yards and a TD. But the throws a pick on the play he gets knocked out.

If you were to go to another board and say, I can get you a QB who completes 90% of his passes. People will be like \"sh-t yeah!\" Or, I can say I can get you a guy who throws a 1-1 INT-TD ratio per game. People will be like \"hmmmm\". Or I can say, I can get you a guy who has taken somewhere between 10 and 15 snaps, he\'s ok, but he threw a totally moronic looking INT.

Anyway, you can see where I\'m going with this. Unless the stats are understood in a context (namely the game itself) they are only somewhat useful.

The point: the fact that a bunch of guys who know something about football (maybe some stats, maybe what they heard on ESPN), but may have never seen a single Saints game (ever), just aren\'t the guys whose views I\'m going to take overly seriously.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

There\'s nothing wrong with it Kool, except you want me to believe that over the course of several years now OUTSIDE FACTORS have caused problems for Brooks and not just Brooks being a bad QB. If it was one year, sure. I can see that. But it\'s a habit. He fumbles this year just as much as last year he just didn\'t lose the same amount. So if next year, he leads the league in turnovers that lead directly to points for the opposing team, will you have an excuse for him then? When you are talking about red zone turnovers, you are talking about points the team CAN NOT SCORE, OFF THE BOARD. That is a HUGE STAT and you are tryin to undervalue it to defend Brooks. That I don\'t understand. One year maybe you can forgive. But we are on year 4 of excuses for this guy and blaming everyone else, when will we get tired of it? Never I guess. I am at a loss. I will read what you guys say next if anything, but I won\'t respond cause I honestly and genuinely can not understand. And I am not cracking wise, I really just do not understand.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Our defense lead the league in yards allowed. Should we cut them all? Are they all equally to blame for that? Is Charles Grant just as bad as Tebucky Jones? Grant LEAD THE LEAGUE IN YARDS ALLOWED after all.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

We can take all sorts of stats and you can spin \'em and I can spin \'em. I think during our posting we both have, but the stat that matters most to me (and no, I\'m not dissing all the others necessarilly) is scoring. Our Brooks-led offense, year after year, regardless or this stat or that stat or the other stat, scores enough to win...we just can\'t stop anybody, and replacing the QB with somebody\'s water boy isn\'t going to help that problem. Maybe we can replace Venturi with somebody\'s water boy...now THAT I\'d go for!

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Yards allowed is a team stat. Did Joe Horn also have 3500 passing yards? You are just being silly now kool. I am sure you know the difference between INDIVIDUAL and TEAM stats. But if that is how you deflect from Brooks, have at it. I see where you come from now on this argument, and realize it makes no sense for me to diagree with you cause you are entrenched in defending him. It\'s all good. He\'s your guy, I get it. I won\'t beat myself up about it anymore thinking you are riding the fence, when you are really a supporter.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Jkool, I think the filter is a bit too sensitive.
Anyway, here\'s my analysis...
My ***esment, or ***umption, is that p***es will now be called from the ***istant coaches which I feel may be an ***ett now. ***igning blame and ***ailing Brooks\' for everything he does borders on character ******ination and har***ment. I can probably ***emble a beautiful video tape, without much ***istance of Brooks ***ention from a rookie to the ***et he has become to this ***ortment of underachieving athletes. I ***ure you it would ***ist in convincing the detractors of his value to this team. It wold be a m***ive task, but the m***es may come around.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Whodi,

Thanks for that most recent post. That sounded like what I was getting at.

You and I agree that Brooks is a problem. All along, I\'ve only been defending him (not absolving him - since that means saying he has no fault) because I think relative to some other options (no matter how bad he has been), he is better than THOSE options.

The point isn\'t to say that he is a good QB, or even that he is good for the team. The point is to say, relative to our other problems (and the options we have for replacing him) he isn\'t that bad.

Furthermore, see my point regarding stats. I just think, in a team game, sometimes (not always) it makes sense to look at why someone\'s stats are the way they are.

I hear you on the number of years thing, but I\'m not convinced - see my \"only fixed thing\" argument above.

I DO AGREE THAT BROOKS IS A PROBLEM. HE MAKES DUMB MISTAKES AND HE DOES HURT THE TEAM. EVERYONE AGREES WITH THAT.

The disagreement is about whether he should be replaced and with whom. Obviously, we want to make decisions on the basis of the whole game, not just a handful of stats.

If I were to ask, why did Hasselbeck\'s stats drop off last year, and someone were to say \"his WR dropped a lot of balls\", I would think, \"oh, ok, so his stats are not all on him\". That seems reasonable. I didn\'t stop thinking that his drop off was somewhat his fault, I just think it is less his fault than before.

I don\'t understand why that is confusing?

another i cant hepp it thread
 

I agree with you Whodi. I agree that Brooks makes some boneheaded plays. Do you agree with the above? Is 21 points enough to win? Is giving up 20 points a game something you\'d accept?

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Whodi, you obviously didn\'t read what I said. The fact that you would bother to write this is both offensive and annoying.

I\'m sorry that I don\'t agree that Brooks just plain sucks. I\'ve stated my view elsewhere, and I am on the fence when it comes to him. What I\'m not on the fence about is the way you have treated me in this argument.

I thought we were getting somewhere, but you obviously prefer to make it about me rather than about the ideas. I don\'t like that at all.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Danno.

Now that I\'ve managed to decode your post, I think I agree somewhat. Is that what you really think?

another i cant hepp it thread
 

No, but Joe Horn certainly had a hand in that, didn\'t he?

another i cant hepp it thread
 

It\'s not about you Kool, it\'s about you saying you are on the fence, then you defend harder than anyone. Frogive me if that would be confusing. The yeah so and so does this BUT argument does not seem like someone who is on the fence to me. It seems like you very much know where you stand on this issue, and anyone who reads this thread and didn\'t know you would see the same. No need to take it personal, just shows me how things are. Doesn\'t change the facts that you arguments are intelligent and challenging, just changes how I have to approach them.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Well let\'s see saintfan. Since Atlanta and St. Louis\' defenses both gave up more than 20 points per game last year, and their offenses scored LESS points per game than ours, hell yeah I would take it, if it came with a QB who didn\'t lead the league in red zone turnovers. They both made the playoffs right?

[Edited on 17/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Just having a little fun with the new A$$-filter.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Whodi,

I would be cool with your view on this IF I WAS A BROOKS SUPPORTER, but I am NOT. I don\'t see why you wouldn\'t take my word for it? He gets enough crap around here that I see no reason to take that side of the issue.

Recall, the good discussion that you and BMG and I had? In that discussion, I was plainly willing to grant all sorts of problem with Brooks (and I even helped BMG build a better argument). This is because there ARE GOOD REASONS TO GET RID OF BROOKS. However, there are a lot of arguments out there that I just can\'t agree with EVEN IF I THINK BROOKS IS A PROBLEM. Those arguments should not be believed.

The reason I am on the fence is because I don\'t think there are good arguments that decide the issue. There are good ones and bad ones on both sides.

You don\'t need an angle with me. You merely need to state your views and consider what is being said. I\'d like to think that that is what most of us do, most of the time.

If all you mean by Brooks supporter is this \"sometimes I offer arguments against those who bash him\", I guess I am. If you mean this \"I want Brooks to stay no matter what and I think he is a great QB\", then you are just wrong.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Then I will take your word for it, and say I was wrong.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Thanks buddy.

Sorry for getting upity.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

So then our offense is better than both the Rams and the Falcons? Interesting. I guess I can see now why you\'re so interested in replacing Brooks and why you\'d probably jump at the chance to trade our QB for theirs straight up.

C\'mon man. I can admit that Brooks makes some stupid mistakes, Why in the world is it so hard for you to admit that the problem with the Saints is the defense? I\'m not saying the offense couldn\'t improve, but isn\'t it pretty plain to see we need help on the o-line exterior? Isn\'t it pretty clear we need to be able to STOP somebody? I haven\'t looked up the number, but I wonder how many games we lost when we help the opposition under 20?

another i cant hepp it thread
 

I never disagreed on those points saintfan, what I did disagree on is that a QB who leads the league in red zone turnovers hurts this team, as I have shown you. I disagreed that a QB last year who led the league in lost fumbles hurts this team. I remember clearly he alone cost us at least one game(Tampa). I disagreed that a QB who never completed 60% of his passes in any season hurts this team. Yeah, out tackles are bad, our defense is bad, but to me, AB is just as big a problem, as I have shown you two teams in similar boats as us scoring wise offensively and defensively whose QBs DID NOT lead the league in red zone turnovers. I could have done 2003 also as there were MORE playoff teams whose defenses gave up 20 points per game, and gave up more points per game than ur defense, yet still made the playoffs. But their QBs didn\'t lead the league in lost fumbles either. I guess we will just have to disagree. Cool?

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Absolutely, we\'re cool. No ill will here. I understand why folks are on Brooks case, I just think fixing the defense should be our #1 priority. I do agree tho that we should get somebody in here to push Brooks. We\'re on common ground there for sure.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Oh man, this new editor is hilarious. A football site ... and you can\'t use the word \"passes.\"

Priceless...

;)

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Try to look at it this way. It is true that other areas of the team need to be fixed besides just the QB. I can\'t speak for everyone, but here is why I am frustrated, and it should be very easy to see. Yes, the defense needs to improve. Yes, the O-lines needs help. Yes, the secondary needs help. I don\'t think there is one area of the team that could not stand improving. The fact of the matter is that all of these areas, over the last four years, have been addressed. except one. So, the question a lot of us have is when will we get our turn. There are some of us who would like to see that position addressed also, but, so far, we have been put on hold. So, all you guys who are hollering for defense, linemen, etc., well, you\'ve gotten to see some changes made. They may not have all worked, but at least you have had a chance to see some changes in areas you thought needed attention. Some of us think that the QB position should merit some attention. What we\'ve gotten, however, is a QB who needs to be coddled to remain satisfied, and a coaching staff that has pretty much been willing to do that. So our frustration level is peaking, because now we are looking at going into our fifth year without having our desires attended to. Surely you can see how that would be frustrating for those who have wanted to see what someone else could do at that position. On top of that, we have seen people who we thought might have been able to provide us with relief in that area go off to other teams and have success there. That even adds to our frustration. Can\'t you see that?

another i cant hepp it thread
 

saintsfan, we definitely agree there. Much respect.

LB, Could hardly have said it better myself, and haven\'t I guess for 3 pages. :cool:

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Danno. you\'re having way to much fun with that. :rollinglaugh:

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Whodi,

I really like this post. We are very close to a meeting of the minds.

We do say all of those things along with:

Brooks needs to keep his yap shut.

Brooks isn\'t the top 5 elite QB he thinks he is.

Brooks needs to get his TO\'s down and his completions up.

Brooks needs to have more touch on the ball and lead the receivers.

Brooks does make maddenly boneheaded plays. The fumble in Arizona at the one is still seared in my brain.

..you know it\'s coming...

BUT! :D

the line is drawn at getting rid of the guy. The line is drawn at the thought that there is actually a QB that\'s available that would be such a significant improvement in the position, that we have no choice but to ship Brooks off and get whatever we can for him.

And the line is drawn primarily because to the Brooks \"defenders\" that it\'s primarily a decision based on emotion from the Brooks detractors. That somehow because of better chemistry, that replacing Brooks with some other QB wil suddenly result in 3-4 extra wins in the regular season and a deep run into the playoffs.

Bring someone else in? Fine.

Have some competition at the QB position? Fine.

Improve the QB slot all around? Fine.

Ship Brooks off and get someone else cold? No. That\'s too far. At least right now.



I think that\'s just a reaction trying to find balance to the all day all night anti-Brooks assault. Billy sometimes swings the pendulum a bit too far. But frankly JKool and I are really moderates on the subject.

There are no excuses for Brooks. He has his flaws. But (there it is again!) none of them are so egregious that he needs to be summarily dismissed.

I have continously profferred that that even if the offense was completely unchanged, even with the poor starting performances from last year, that if the defense could be improved enough to keep the team in it, that the team would win games.

The last 4 games bear that out. The 6 game last year when the Saints held the opposition under 21 points bears that out (5-1). The last 4 years when the defense has held the opposition to under 21 points bears that out (20-8).

The offense, with Brooks who has flaws, Deuce who has been hurt, little production from the TE position, tackles on both ends who make costly penalties, and the new center are good enough to win games.

The summarily place all of the teams woes on Brooks, and thinking that simply by replacing him we\'ll suddenly be vying for a SuperBowl is the ultimate in Sunshining.

But what is failed to be realized is that along with leadership and smarts and saavy, which the anti-Brooks crowd seems to be looking for, there also needs to be production. And despite his flaws, Brooks has consistently produced in the last 4 years.

All I keep saying, and I frankly get tired of saying, is that while Brooks has problems, Brooks isn\'t THE PROBLEM! Reason being is that there is no THE PROBLEM! on this team. Well other than Rick Venturi! :D There are several issues on the team. Most of them are on the defensive side of the ball. Personally I think that the only true personnel change on the offensive side of the ball should be Victor Riley. It\'s not just the false starts and the holding last year. It was simply the fact there were times when the opposing defensive ends just took him to the woodshed. I even give both Boo and Stallworth another year to step up to plate.

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Whodi,

I\'m going to go into taboo territory to make a point:
Now again it\'s taboo. But the point is that all NFL QBs make bonehead plays. Even veteran ones. Does anything in your mind change if we remove the three worst bonehead plays from the season (the two you mentioned and the 1 yard line fumble in Arizona?)

Look. Everyone in the league wants their QB to be Peyton Manning. To break the record for TDs with virtually no TOs. But that\'s a guy that has been in the same system, with the same guys, and the same coaches for 7 years.

As I\'ll keep saying (I guess every day for the rest of the offseason) Brooks has his problems. But he isn\'t a bum. He\'s a serviceable NFL QB than in the right system and the right team can be top 10 material and ProBowl caliber.

Right now the Saints are in a situation where it\'s unlikely that any QB is going to make a significant improvement.

Brooks is flawed. But so is Garcia, Warner, Johnson, and Bledsoe.

Brooks is flawed. But those flaws are not life threatning to the team.

It\'s like wating a medical show and hearing the nurse tell the doctor:
and the Doc replies
Brooks has flaws. But as the Indianapolis Colts have shown two years in a row, if you really want to succeed in the NFL, you have to have a decent defense.

So why is it every day here we talk about the scratch instead of the heart attack? Why are we trying to amputate when we need to perform CPR?

Why?

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

I\'ve been putting the numbers out:

When the Saints hold the opposition to under 21 points:

4-0 in the last 4 games
5-1 in 6 games in 2004
20-8 from 2001-2004

All at a minimum of a 700 winning percentage.

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Amen.
Agreed.
[quote:df0254d460]
The disagreement is about whether he should be replaced and with whom. Obviously, we want to make decisions on the basis of the whole game, not just a handful of stats.[quote:df0254d460]
Absolutely.

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Changed and addressed are two different things.

All of these areas have had personnel changes. But there hasn\'t been any significant improvement.

You can\'t tell me that Riley and Gandy could hold a candle to Roaf and Turley. It\'s change. But addressing?

Now see that\'s an honest post. I can truly appreciate that point of view.

Just some quick points:

1) Haslett and Loomis are idiots if they are coddling Brooks. Their job is to do what\'s best for the team, not Brooks.

2) I always felt that Jake should have played the last 4 games of 2002. Haslett certainly made a bonehead there.

3) You seem to be calling for change for change sake. Despite Brooks\' bonehead plays and the turnovers, Brooks is productive in the QB position.

4) It seems like you\'re looking for a spark. Like Rothisberger this year. But the Steelers could afford to do that because they had the #1 defense in the league and a solid run game.

In fact based on stats I\'ll predict right now who\'ll be the next NFC powerhouse:

The Washington Redskins.

Why? Top 5 defense. Outstanding running game. Solid coaching. Ramsey won\'t have to step up and win the game.

But the Saints are not there yet. So you can\'t just change the QB position for change\'s sake.

SaintFan hit it right on the head: continue to work on the defense. The Saints would have gone 12-4 last year if the defense could hold teams to under 20 points. The Saints could have been in the divisional round of the playoffs if their defense could hold teams to under 20 points. Same offense, same line, same QB with the same issues the QB has had.

The defense has been changed in the past. It still needs to be changed. This is a defense that\'s only 10 games removed from giving up 600+ yards and 38 points. A game where the offense scored 31 points and scored on its last possession of the ball. But the defense never got it back to the offense.

Brooks has made himself a focal point. Dumb move in my opinion.

But the real focal point of htis offseason is still on the defensive side of the ball.

Brooks and the rest of the offense needs to be judged in a season where the defense is middle of the pack. Ranked in the top 15, and consistently holding teams to under 21 PPG.

If the team cannot improve their standing in that environment, I would then say FIRE AWAY!

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

You say that it looks like I\'m looking for a spark. You certainly nailed that one. Are all of the AB defenders totally ignoring the possiblilty that maybe, just maybe, that there are people on the team that would like to see a change in that area, also? Is it such a ridiculous theory that maybe the underachieving at seemingly all of the areas of the team could be subconcious rebelling by players who want to see a change, also. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if a player on a team that I was busting my ass (might as well make use of the censor thingy) for made comments similar to the ones that AB has made that I would take great exception to those comments. I don\'t know how it would affect my game, because I have been fortunate enough to have never had to deal with someone on my TEAM making such comments. That could possibly account for some of the offensive players unbelievable lack of concentration.

Then there is the cry for better defense. Is it remotely possible that if you reduced the amount of time that the defense was on the field that they would allow less points to be scored. Is it also possible that some of the points that are being scored are the offenses responsibilty. I can think of a few occasions where that was the case, and I bet you could, too, if you tried hard enough.

I suppose you would prefer to think that none of these things could possibly be true...just excuses for AB bashers.
You see, that\'s where the frustration sets in. We\'ve tried changing everything else, and nothing seems to work. Someone different coming in at QB could be the answer, but we may never find out. What is so bizarre to me is there are those who almost seem afraid to find out, because they\'ve taken this position, and heaven forbid if someone were able to come in and make a difference. That would mean a few people having to \"eat crow\" and admit that there must have been some truth to some of the AB\'s detractors theory. Now that would never do, would it?

[Edited on 18/2/2005 by Saint_LB]

another i cant hepp it thread
 

(1) Nice work SFIAH. Well put.

(2) I feel like this is honest, and I understand; I really do. I feel for you guys. I don\'t think that a change in QB is all there is to it, but I understand the frustration that comes with that position. I really wish I could make you guys see it the way some of us do. I know I can\'t. I do wish I could help though.

(3) The reason we are afraid, if I get to speak for all of us, has nothing to do with being wrong, I assure you. Being wrong, when it leads to wins and truth has NEVER bothered me. I don\'t see why people think that others hold on to a view merely because it means they were wrong. It has to do with our asessment of the probability that we are wrong. We are believers that Brooks can get it done, that there are no viable options in the next two years that appear to be able to get it done (except maybe Brees in my case, and a small number of others in others\' cases), and that it could be a serious problem to bring in a guy who can\'t get it done while Duece and Horn are in their prime. Wouldn\'t it be equally awful for the detractors if we ditched AB for a fourth round pick and brought in a guy who was worse than AB? Certainly that is possible.

I certainly admit that there is something to the detractor\'s view. The cap problem and the leadership problem seem like viable problems. However, they are not sufficient to get past the \"no better option available within two years\" problem. A rookie will not do IMO, nor will many of the free agents who will be available.

While you are concerned about Brooks effect on the whole team, we are concerned with the teams\' effect on Brooks. I don\'t see any good way to resolve that dispute. Indeed, I believe there is none.

Furthermore, while you think the spark could be provided by a new QB, we believe it could be provided by a better defense, a better OL, or better coaching. I see no way to resolve that dispute either.

Finally, what is bizzare to me is that people cannot admit that players can improve (especially when the people immediately responsible for their perfromance are improved - say an OL for a QB), no one player is responsible for ALL the woes of a team, and given that football is a team sport, ONE guy is never all there is to the story.

So, while I completely understand the \"get rid of Brooks camp\", I feel that that camp has done very little to understand the \"Brooks is ok\" or the \"Brooks can get it done\" camps. I, personally, have agreed with many arguments in favor of the \"get rid of Brooks\" camp (here in this thread and elsewhere), but I see very little by way of effort from that camp to understand their opponents. More flack comes from the \"get rid of Brooks camp\" than any other side of the story, IMO.

[Edited on 18/2/2005 by JKool]

another i cant hepp it thread
 

That would be assuming that AB is NOT the problem. Let\'s just pretend, for a moment, that he is the cancer creating the problem. If that were the case, you could change linemen, defenders, even coaches until you are blue in the face, but, until you remove the cancer, it will be to no avail. You have to admit that the only way the argument will ever be settled is if :

A) We succeed with Brooks, or
B) We fail with someone else, or
C) We succeed with someone else

None of these scenarios have happened, yet, so we continue arguing.

I will go on record here and now that if next year, or the year after, or however long we continue with the \"AB Experiment\"
scenario A comes to fruition, then I will start a thread and it will read, YOU GUYS WERE RIGHT, and in the thread I will tell you all to pat yourselves on the back for having the insight and patience that some of us others did not have. If scenario B ever happens, then my thread will read, I WAS WRONG...that is providing the replacement is someone I feel is worthy and he is given half the time AB has already been given. If we do go with someone else and after 4 years we still are on the outside looking in, I will be calling for his scalp, too, regardless of how well the line or defense are doing. If scenario C were to take place, I would think we would all be happy. Ask yourself, would you?

I have asked this question before, and I will ask it again. It has been 4 1/2 years now with AB...how much more time should be given to AB before it would be unanimous that AB is not the answer? (Assuming scenario A is never met)

When I think about it, though, I already know what the answer will be. It will be indefinitely, unless we finish the season with the best rushing offense, the #1 ranked defense, and 0 sacks allowed all year, and still finish out of the playoffs...because then, there would be no more excuses.

And one final thing. I hope I\'m not the only one, but I don\'t get the reasoning that we shouldn\'t change because we might get worse. If we were a heartbeat away, like say Philly, then I could buy into that logic...but we aren\'t. I would think that if we were that close, you would have a hard time getting anyone to say anything negative about AB. Another comment was made that we may make a change, and that person will fail while Horn and Deuce still have gas in their tank. What if we don\'t make a change, and the results don\'t change, and then by the time we get around to making the change, they have run out of gas? That coin has two sides.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

I understand where you are coming from with that. But if that were the case there would be more direct evidence of it. We saw several examples of it last year in Tampa, the Giants, the Bears, Dallas, and Garcia in Cleveland. When the QB was clearly a significant part of the problem, the offense had no production.

While I\'m the first to admit that the Saints\' offense was anemic in the first quarter of games last year in 3/4 of their games the team scored 21 or more points.

Finally if Brooks really were a cancer, wouldn\'t at least one player come out and state \"Get rid of the bum or I want a trade?\"

It\'s Occam\'s Razor to me. The evidence simply doesn\'t point to Brooks being the win killing cancer on this team.
Sure I would. And I would say that you were right.

There is another unfortunate path there: injury. Injury is how Brady became the Man in NE. In fact injury was how Brooks got his shot.

That\'s one reason why I keep saying we do need to sign a passable backup QB.

But I don\'t think you\'ll have much longer to wait. Brooks is moving into the big salary portion of his contract. He\'s really only affordable to the Saints for one more year. Here\'s a tidbit that points out that exact point:

http://profootballtalk.com/12-01-04through12-15-04.htm

So either Brooks will have to significantly contribute to the only stat that matters: wins, restructure his contract (which we all know he won\'t do because he believes he\'s a top 5 QB in this league), or leave.

Since it\'s my assertion that he can\'t make this team a winner by himself, and that his ego is too inflated to take a pay cut, that the only other option is for him to go.

You will get the change you so desperately seek.

Same question, same answer: It\'s not about Brooks. The answer to that question is about money, and only money. Brooks will get pulled when the team can no longer afford to pay him what he thinks that he\'s worth.

My prediction is that he\'s gone next off season.

Again that timeframe is about money.

And I\'m 99 percent sure that if the Saints finished with the best rushing offense, the #1 ranked defense, and 0 sacks, that they would win the SB because...

then it\'s still not about Brooks. You just described the 2000 Baltimore Ravens and the 2004 Pittsburg Steelers. One one the SB and one finished one game short.

BTW that\'s the mode the Saints will probably have to go to when Brooks leaves.

Of course it does. But the stats point to the fact that if you fix the defense, this team wins.

So fix the defense. Plain and simple.

SFIAH