another i cant hepp it thread
 

First of all, those of us who aren\'t ready to get rid of AB are not all pro-AB, we just don\'t see any viable alternative or we feel like other areas are bigger needs. Until the Bashers accept this as true, they will never understand the position of the moderates. The bashers keep throwing out ABs faults as if the moderates have ignored they exist when the reality is that the moderates have been equally as vocal about AB\'s problems we just haven\'t taken it that further step and said \"adios AB. We\'ll replace you with....\"

I also love how you rely on \"we\'ve tried to fix everything else and it hasn\'t worked\" to say that AB should be replaced.If you could say we fixed everything else, it would be different. The reality is nothing else has really been fixed.

The o-line is worse now than when it was \"fixed\".
Safety position is worse now than before TJones was obtained.
DT is still a huge problem area although we\'ve tried many times to fill in players there.
WR is a little less effective than in the past even though we\'ve added a 1st and 2nd round picks here.
TE is nearly a joke, but we add and add to it to no avail.
CB had not improved at all until MM came along. Still a big concern.
LB is the biggest unknown on the team. Players have come and gone.

So, of the list above, you want to rely on these positions as having been fixed or tried to be fixed as reason for AB to be let go? I say that is illogical because it\'s obvious these positions were not helped by the tinkering. Thus, you can\'t point to the tinkering as a justification for releasing AB. AND, now what you want to do is tinker with the QB position.

Does anything about how well this team has done at solving its problems make you think that by making a change at QB it will be for the better? Look at the track record of the changes we\'ve made.

Again, because I kow you\'ve forgotten what I said at first. I know AB has his problems. You don\'t have to list things like redzone INTs and fumbles. I am aware!

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Love this post, and it seems to be one of the more civil discussions on this topic.

From what I can tell, it seems that the crowd that defends Brooks believes (by and large) that he should not be replaced and that there are bigger concerns to deal with (O-line, Defense, etc). The crowd against Brooks is tired of waiting for Brooks to stop making the horrific plays and to consistently display the excellent play we see in him on some occasions.

I don\'t believe Aaron Brooks will ever overcome the game-breaking mistakes. I don\'t believe Aaron Brooks will ever play consistently great. What I do believe is that we are seeing, year in and year out, the way Brooks\' play will always be. Some games, he will play like an all-pro and others he will lose for us single-handedly.

For me, that is what frustates me so much when I hear the argument \"there\'s no one out there who is proven to be better so we keep him\". I just don\'t see that as very real world. This is a simplistic example that is how I see it without tying it to all the personal feelings about our QB. Here goes:

If I owned a car that I used to transport me to work. I used to love this car! It made me feel cool and I even managed to pick-up a model/actress that first year! Woot! Good times and I was certain even better days were head.

Since that time, the car has been a little less. Most days it got me to work just fine. On some days, the radio even worked and made the ride fun! On some days it just broke down and I couldn\'t get to work. Now this year, the road was being worked on and the ride was rough. Last year, the weather was bad a lot. The year before that, there was a small coolant leak. Those all made the ride a bit harder for the car to make, but in the end the car just performs the way it does independent of the environment.

I\'ve taken it to mechanics. I\'ve bought manuals. I\'ve shined it up and put money into it. Nothing seems to affect how it performs. That\'s just the way that car is.

Unfortunately, my boss is angry now because I\'ve missed work more than he would like. Now, I can afford a spiffy new car nor a restored and great classic. Hell, the guys I know with those cars are not selling! The used car lot down the road has a lot of cars. Problem is, I don\'t know if they really would be an upgrade.

I may trade in my car for one of those and make it to work less, lose my job, etc. Problem is, I\'m not sure I realistically expect that the car I currently have is going to suddenly perform a lot better. Oh yeah, the road work may get finished this year. The weather could be great. Those things no doubt had an effect on the car\'s performance, but they don\'t account for all of it. The car accounts for MOST of it.

Seems that I am paralyzed by the risk of it. If I stay with my car, I may make it work. If I buy a new one, I may make it to work. The only thing I KNOW for sure is that the car I have now has a track record of me not making it to work. Will there EVERY be a year when EVERYTHING else that MAY effect the car be perfect? If that year comes along, wouldn\'t ANY car do just as well at getting me to work? Even the Dilfermobile?

I don\'t need to spell it out any more. For my part, I want to see someone else QBing. They may not be an upgrade. So what. We may lose even more games. So what. Something has to be done.

It seems clear to me that AB\'s performance is not going to lift us up. At best, he can \"fill the QB role\" on a team that doesn\'t require him to be better than average. We are not that team. For us to win, we need someone who will lift us up - not lead us to easy victory one week and lose the game single-handedly the next week. We have to take the risk to find that guy. If we don\'t, we have to learn to accept these .500 seasons.

Compound all that with Brooks\' ridiculously high salary (for his performance) and his rumored demands for even more..... ** I was going to turn this into a gas-guzzler thing with the car analogy, but just got tired of typing :)

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Yikes, this train sure got rolling. All I can say is, I pointed out to saintfan how two teams made the playoffs scoring LESS points per game than us and giving up more than 20 points per game, just like us. I also pointed out that FOUR teams\' defenses last year that made the playoffs gave up MORE ponits per game than us. The difference, their QBs did not lead the league in lost fumbles one year, and red zone turnovers the next year COUPLED WITH a sprinkling of bone-headed plays. Those are FACTS. If teams whose defenses are similar to ours can make the playoffs, as I have repeatedly pointed out, there is only one difference, who their QB is and the mistakes he makes to minimize the poor defense. It just so happens our QB MAXIMIZES the sometimes ineptitude of our defense. I will say right now I feel if AB DID NOT lead the league in lost fumbles last year and DID NOT lead the league in red zone turnovers this year we would have won at least TWO more games between those two seasons, both putting us in the playoffs. Had we won just ONE more game this year we would have been in, doesn\'t it seem like a stat such as LEADING THE LEAGUE IN RED ZONE TURNOVERS could have been the difference? Doesn\'t it seem liek a stat such as LEADING THE LEAGUE IN LOST FUMBLES can hurt your team? And other teams QBs get bashed but they don\'t LEAD the league in these horrible stats. So while we may not be in the Superbowl, eliminating these horrendous stats will get us into the playoffs, that is proven. Teams whose defenses give up 20 points a game and score less than us GET INTO THE PLAYOFFS. FOUR TEAMS WITH WORSE scoring defenses last year GOT INTO THE PLAYOFFS. We had the worst first quarter scoring disparity in the league, coincidence that we have a QB who in ZERO SEASONS AS A STARTER has ever completed over 60% of his passes? That much coincidence? Coincidence that over the 4 game winning streak, 16 quarters of football, our QB played terrible for 11 of those quarters? Yikes. So again, if he plays that bad in wins, how much worse is it when other parts of the team can\'t disguise how terrible he is? That\'s when you get to blame everyone else. We had a perfect example of who AB is the last 4 games, so I guess it is acceptable for your QB to play like crap 75% of the time as long as everyone else carries his weight. Okay.

[Edited on 18/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

another i cant hepp it thread
 

wow, i just have to chime in a little. threads are funny, eh? i posted this just as a little oddity for entertainment moreless. it evolves into the deep heartfelt feelings about the performance of ab and whether he should be gone. other posts that might warrant deeper discussion ( ex: http://www.blackandgold.net/site...hread&tid=8035) sometimes get only one or two replies. no beef i just find it interesting how the leon issue continually revs up like this. i do not feel compelled to argue over the quality of his performance or the lack thereof. some see the 50+ fumble type of error filled play with negative leadership intangibles, others see more a bad defense, bad offensive line, etc. my biggest beef about him no matter where you grade him is that we are not getting $6million worth of performance. success in the cap world is who gets the most total bang for the buck. $6mil is upper echelon pay. with the erratic play i can only peg brooks total play at average or best. i do not think a mike mcmahon (for example) is a overall more talented player but i do think i would rather have him at $2mil a year and conver that $4mil diff into o-line or defensive upgrades. i see ab like plummer when at arizona, talented but erratic. now at denver he has done better, talented and erratic surrounded by a better team. i would not feel disappointed if he went elsewhere and had better luck. i do not think his basic makeup of who he is and how he plays is going to suddenly change. maybe better stats with a better supporting cast but sum total of wins/losses not different. i do not have an ounce of hope this front office is going to do anything in that regard. they have too much of themselves at stake and riding on him. with that as a given i do not get too revved up about it. i think another year of failure and then there might finally be significant change from loomis to venturi to brooks and more. i have been a saints fan since their first preseason kickoff and have endured this far. another season is nothing for those so used to hoping against hope.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Scotty and SFIAH, nice work. I\'m going to leave this one to you guys today, since (1) I\'m tired of it, and (2) I\'ve got an impossibly busy day. I\'m presenting a paper today, wish me luck.

FF and Whodi, I see the position you have. I respect that position. I think it is wrong. I\'ve heard the arguments you gave here many times before (often from the two of you). They are well articulated and thoughtful. You probably already know what I think the problems with them are, so I won\'t repeat them right now.

I hope this thread continues becoming even more lucid and intelligent (rather than bogging back down to name calling).

Here is my current hypothesis on the Brooks debate: since everyone pretty well agrees on the facts, all there is to disagree about is how a given poster responds to those facts (i.e. his feelings about the facts). Since no argument can be made that hasn\'t been heard, the only thing left to do is to state ones\' feelings loudly and repeatedly. It reminds me of a bar fight: people who are too drunk to reason, have lost track of the point, and know that they feel differently about something have only one way to solve their dispute.

Just a thought.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Yikes! I\'m still waiting for you to digest this...

In what language can I tell you that I understand that AB hurts our team with his play sometimes (or even often)?

FF, really cut to the chase of the matter. It has been something I\'ve suspicioned for a while about some of the bashers when he said...
The rest of the bashers may not be ready to admit it, but I get the feeling that you feel this way. You\'d honestly prefer to have McMahon, for instance, at QB with all else being the same and lose 2 more games than we would have with AB, just to get rid of AB. That is called hurting the team just to replace AB.

Lastly, I\'ll take it that the bashers agree with my list of things we have tried to fix, but haven\'t, and stop using the \"the only constant has been AB\" BS. The true only constant is that out team has not been good all around for quite a while.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Truer words have never been spoken!!

another i cant hepp it thread
 

SR,

Not what I meant to imply and not what I think I said.

I would not take ANOTHER proven, inconsistent loser over Brooks. What I would do is take a chance on a guy who shows promise and be satisfied EVEN IF WE DID WORSE. At least it would be effort to change a common problem.

Like it or not, the only player who touches the ball every single play is Brooks. He is the single common thread in the offense. The QB on every team is the same. This doesn\'t prove that AB is responsible for our poor offensive play. It does suggest that his play has a greater impact than any other.

As an aside, the points-scored/points-allowed argument is crap in my opinion. If we cannot score at all in the first quarter and we get behind because we can\'t stop anyone from scoring - it doesn\'t surprise me that we would put up twenty points. Enemy defenses (when playing from a big lead) will play off and let you score, as long as it takes you a while to do it. That\'s not a reflection of QBing skill, rather just the way the game is played. I think it\'s unfair to use the argument that with Brooks at the helm, we score points - to support the idea that Brooks is good or qualified to play QB.

Is it Brooks\' fault that we can\'t stop anyone? Nope. Is it Brooks fault we can\'t score in the first quarter? Not entirely, but he plays the biggest role in that.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

i didnt see your post scotty when i did mine and probably vice versa. i think you can see my point in using mcmahon in example is to try someone like him AND take the $4mil and go for significant change elsewhere, not status quo just to get rid of ab. in fact i see it even larger light- move him, gain $6mil to invest otherwise and pickup a low first or second draft pick for him or another starting caliber linebacker. i think those wishing for greater overhaul (not bashers per se) believe they know this poison and have had enough of it. another scenario with a garcia, mcmahon, whoever might not yield better results, but then again it could. another year of the same poison though- a little more than one fumble every game, the failures at such critical junctures, the buckwheat smile after throwing game ending interceptions, the i\'m so great jive, etc... whew, i\'d rather a different flavor poison. i think the probability of success ala having a journeyman come in and win big like a brad johnson in tampa bay, trent dilfer baltimore or kurt warner st. louis is just as likely, or more, than no change at all- especially with ab being a $6million dolar man.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

There\'s one big hole in the \"let\'s replace Brooks with someone who can \"manage\" the game\" theory.\"

1. QB\'s who manage the passing game only have success when a defense holds oppents to low scores.

Examples:
a.) Trent Dilfer in Baltimore.
b. ) Jake Delhomme in Carolina.
c. Ben Rolthisberger in Pittsburg.

Given the fact that our defense has given up the most points over the last few seasons, I see little effect another QB is gonna make. Unless we get someone like Mike Vick who can win games on his own.

So, before we get a QB who can \"manage\" the passing game, we better get a defense that can stop somebody.

2. If we get a defense who can stop somebody, maybe we won\'t have to rely on Brooks to win every game.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Amen FF and Kelley. The problem you are gonna encounter Kelley is, let\'s use Scotty as an example since he spoke out, because McMahon does not have AB\'s \"stats\" McMahon is not gonna be seen as a viable alternative. Forget the fact that he is athletic, young, and has upside. You don\'t see AB\'s \"stats.\" Forget the fact that he doesn\'t start cause the team invested a #3 pick in Harrington. I see fully your point about getting rid of AB\'s salary, bringing a guy like him in at 2 mil, and showing up other areas of the team. How that is a losing proposition I don\'t understand.

Um Scotty, then explain to me why you don\'t wanna get rid of Brooks if you understand this as you say? You obviously DON\'T understand this. Without his mistakes, we make the playoffs, plain and simple. With his mistakes, we don\'t. So if you understand this, why wouldn\'t you wanna get rid of him?

So then how is this BS if you say you understand this If something is HURTING the team as you say you understand, wouldn\'t you wanna get rid of it? If you had lung cancer, and they removed your spleen, would you be satisfied with that even though the lung cancer is HURTING you? Then they removed a kidney but you still had lung cancer. SO basically what you are saying is you understand something is hurting the team, but youare unwilling to change it. Okay.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

FINALLY!!!

Whodi finally had the guts to say what Brooks bashers have been trying to say to awhile.

Now prove it. I\'m going to preempt you on your 1st three:

1) The backwards pass. First off the Saints didn\'t lose the ball on the play. Secondly they lost the game 43-17 to the Chargers.

2) The underhanded pass. Denver was up 20-3 at the time.

3) The Arizona fumble. It was the opening series of the game. Also it was 4th and goal.

Go take a look at the recaps:

http://www.nfl.com/teams/schedule/NO

Now they were all screwups. But I assert that none of these screwups cost the Saints the game.

So the gauntlet has been thown down. Specifically what plays that Brooks screwed up on that cost the Saints a playoff spot?

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Well, for starters, I would go back and review almost all of the plays that occurred in the first quarter of every game this year. I know that this is probably not specific enough, but, I think you understand what I am implying.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

So what you are saying is making a 20-3 game 27-3 helps the team? It\'s okay cause the AB led offense AGAIN could not score in the first, so we were down, and then he adds to it? Okay, I guess that\'s okay.

I also recall the Tampa game last year where AB fumbled FOUR TIMES, two untouched and cost us that game. I also recall had Aeneas Williams not tipped a ball that hit him in the hands late in the Rams game and was caught by Joe Horn , we would have lost that one too. AB threw a perfect strike to Aeneas. This year. What about the Seattle game? Down just 14-7 late, guess who throws an INT and gives Seattle the ball in their own red zone? One guess. We win that game, we are in the playoffs.

Stupid plays, no matter the quarter or the score. Plays a 4 1/2 year starter shouldn\'t make. Are you also gonna try to spin me how leading the league in red zone turnovers somehow helps the team? You do know, and I hate to repeat myself, an offense DOES NOT SCORE on a turnover in the red zone right? No points. Nothing for effort. And he LED THE LEAGUE. Any idea how many offensive players there are in the league? Ballpark figure? It\'s quite an impressive feat let me tell you. So what you want me to understand is, cause AB does stupid things after he couldn\'t lead the offense to a score it is acceptable? Okay. Thanks SFIAH. Whatsoever was I thinking?

another i cant hepp it thread
 

on your two points gumbo i would contend that drastic defensive turnaround is possible. carolina went from 31st in the league in 2001 to 2nd in 2002 while the offense remained steadily poor. the ravens improved in offense and defense from \'98 to \'99- from 26th to 14th and 23rd to 2nd. Big improvement can happen but it is predicated on big change tho.
atlanta had vick out in \'03 but arthur blank could still see they were worse than just that. overhaul= offense 30th to 18th, defense 32nd LAST to 14th and NFC Championship game. Same thing Schottenheimer in SD, look at the trend since he has been there- Defense: 30 to 27 to 18, Offense 16 to 14 to 11. Haslett has been .500 in wins/losses since here but look at the trends in this case- Offense: 10 to 8 to 18 to 10 to 16, Defense: 11 to 19 to 28 to 18 to 32. In 5 years to go from top 11 offense and defense to 16th average O and the absolute worst D DOES warrant overhaul. i hope only the best for ab and the whole team. i just see too much of the same thing, same trend coming with status quo.
on the second point i will qualify by saying i do not consider myself a brooks basher. he has some talent, the inconsistent variety of a jake plummer. but \"we won\'t have to rely on Brooks to win every game\"is over the top. i think even you can say his performance alone lost as many games as he won last year, muchless 2003.

EH?

[Edited on 19/2/2005 by LKelley67]

another i cant hepp it thread
 

No. I\'m saying that making a 20-3 game 27-3 didn\'t cost the team the game.

You said that Brooks mistakes kept the team out of the playoffs. That means that specific Brooks mistakes, solely by his choice, was the only thing that kept the team from winning the games necessary to get into the playoffs.

I just want a list of those plays.

I\'ll give you an example. In the New England Miami game this year, the last interception that Brady threw cost the team the game. That ill advised throw was intercepted in the Miami red zone when the Patriots were leading the game. If brady had eaten the ball, the Pats would have won the game.

I want those plays from Brooks. The plays that cost the team the game, and therefore the playoffs.

No. That not a specific play that lead to the team losing the game.

Here\'s a hypotethical one. In the Carolina game in the 4th quarter Conwell caught a ball and rolled out of bounds, stopping the clock. Because of the time that was still left Carolina had a chance to kick the game into overtime, and could have won the game in overtime. If Conwell stays in bounds, Carolina loses the game because they run out of time.

I want those type plays from Brooks. Where the outcome of the game is directly impacted by a specific play from that specfic player.

Once you start generalizing, you lose the argument. \"If he had only played better then maybe possibly we could have come back from a 40 point deficit to win the game\" doesn\'t wash.

I\'ll give you a play that Brooks made in the opposite direction. From the Tampa Game:

If he doesn\'t make that play, the game is over.

I\'m asking you for the opposite play where the team had the game won, and because of a Brooks screwup, the team lost the game.

2003. Doesn\'t count for this discussion.
Didn\'t happen. So it\'s not relavent. The Saints won that game.

OK. That\'s one. BTW that play was in the third quarter.

Stupid plays, no matter the quarter or the score. Plays a 4 1/2 year starter shouldn\'t make. Are you also gonna try to spin me how leading the league in red zone turnovers somehow helps the team?[/quote:390582b876]
Can you post a link to that stat? I can\'t find a site that separates red-zone turnovers from everything else.

I\'ll be waiting for that link.

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

So the 3rd quarter isn\'t late in the game? I guess it\'s early. Grasp at straws much? How many games did we miss the playoffs by again?

It\'s sad when you can\'t refute Brooks and run out of arguments, you get the can you provide a link argument. But to satify your curiosity, I had to dig this out.

http://msn.foxsports.com/name/public/NFL/ClutchFactor

Happy now, or shuild I not trust a statictical site such as foxsports to get their info right? Anything else you wanna request? I have done both things you asked, shown Aaron losing a game directly, this year and last year, and provided you with a link to the information. Can we run him out of town now? But I guess we can say foxsports has an anti Brooks agenda, I mean I do watch it so maybe my ill feelings led them to write such erroneuos information by the hate I projected through my TV screen or over my internet connection when I am on their website.

[Edited on 18/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Did I say anything about McMahon\'s stats? No. I used somebody that might actually be available to talk about because I\'m sick of the bashers having AB to blame while suggesting this generic anybody could come in and do better. I didn\'t even compare the two QBs. You jumped on the complete wrong idea there. All I was pointing out that McMahon fits the description FF used...he wants a new QB that may or may not be an upgrade and doesn\'t care if bringing in this person costs us a few more games. You jumped on the stat comparison thing.

As far as salary goes. Yeah, I\'d much rather have a player at 2 mil than 6 mil if the play is going to be similar. I\'ve got no problem there.

Of course, I see that but it\'s similarly easy and true to say that about many positions/units. I contend that had the tackles played better, we\'d have made the playoffs. I contend that if CB play had been as good in the 1st half of the season as it was in the 2nd half, we\'d have made the playoffs. That\'s just two. Shall we talk about LB play early or being without Deuce for 3 games? The are plenty of individual areas that I think improvement in would have resulted in another win and a trip to the playoffs. AB IS one of those areas.

As I say time and time again, I\'ll talk about viable alternatives to replacing AB. However, I really feel at a disadvantage because the bashers have a specific player to look at and post stats while claiming a change would help without suggesting a viable person to look at for this. That\'s why I suggested McMahon. I don\'t know that he\'s not capable of beating out Ab and it looks like there\'s potential for him to become available given the Garcia situation.

Why don\'t you bashers come up with your best viable candidate and so we can have this kind of discussion without having to refer to some phantom QB to replace Brooks?

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Uh... No?!

It doesn\'t show the stat. It just shows that Brooks has the most. Peyton had 4 redzone turnovers. Did Brooks have 5? Did he have 14? How many?

All in all it\'s a stat that\'s in isolation.

I\'d like to have the raw data. And preferably the surrounding context too.

Thanks,

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Scotty, there was a thread that was started just for that purpose, to list viable candidates. If you can dig it up, have at it. I am not for it again. But there were 5-6 guys listed. And the main criteria for poo-poohing them over AB was AB\'s \"stats.\" Sorry I grouped you into that.

SFIAh, funny. Say it was 5. Who the hell cares? He still leads the league as reported by foxsports. If you don\'t wanna accept that, fine. But that isn\'t Joe Blow\'s website. It\'s foxsports, you know where they have editors and such. And fact checkers. So basically your impression is that foxsports, a national sports media giant, with the ability to watch and analyze every play of every game, would lie about a stat like that? Give me a break. I see you have no argument left so I will expect your next post to be calling for Ab\'s head. Thanks. :P

[Edited on 18/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Di, I wasn\'t saying that on the thread about viable QB alternatives I didn\'t use stats. I meant that above when I mentioned McMahon, I didn\'t use stats cuz I wasn\'t comparing the two.

I think the red zone ints are overstated too though. Not because there wasn\'t that many or AB didn\'t lead the league, but because, again, that could be a sympton of a problem in another area. Just hear me out...

Farther back on the field even though the o-line wasn\'t giving AB as much time as any QB would need, he could rush his throws and get away without an int. Near the goalline this is not the case because the field is smaller. Thus, the number of sq yards each defender has to cover is smaller and there is not as much room. Mental mistakes are part of it, but I say that your stat about red zone ints is an indication of a problem bigger than AB. Without protection and without being able to pick up blitzes, it\'s plain to see why he might rush some throws or make bad decisions.

This doesn\'t mean he isn\'t to blame on redzone INTs. I just don\'t think they are entirely a product of his QB play alone.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Okay, then I give up. Truly. Does it matter if a UFO was picking up AB\'s red zone passes and dropping them in the hands of opposing defenders? No. The fact is he led the league. I saw in more than one game where AB took a two step drop on the goal line and rifled a pass to Horn that went for an INT. That has nothing to do with blocking or anything else outside of poor decision making in the red zone.

But I give up discussing this cause all anyone will ever give for AB is excuse after excuse after excuse. It\'s never his fault. Poor baby the world has conspired against him so that he is never able to succeed cause the plan is to hold him back. I don\'t know how many times it has to be pointed out that teams with the same problems as us seem to be able to do enough to make the playoffs. And the MAIN difference is at QB, and the kinds of mistakes they make. But I guess it really doesn\'t matter cause the excuses are taxing me. If someone on my job had to make this many excuses for me as to why I as an individual couldn\'t get it done, I would be out of a job. I was late cause it rained. The printer was down so I couldn\'t meet the deadline for my report. The coffee was cold so I fell asleep at my desk. I didn\'t mean to lose that check but I forgot to write down the tracking number from DHL. My alarm didn\'t go off so I slept in. All my slacks are at the cleaners so I have on jeans. My calendar didn\'t save the date and time I entered for the meeting so I missed it. Now I can say all these are valid excuses for me not doing my job, but when is enough enough? I am sure I would be fired if I had to list excuse after excuse after excuse like this.

So as I can see the excuses will never end, and as I can see that Gumbo\'s words ring true in more people\'s minds than just his I see there is really no point in presenting a case opposing AB, cause the excuses will always outweigh the facts. Thanks for the convo you guys. You have beat me into submission.

I am reminded of a convo I had with my stepdad yesterday. And we were discussing the Saints for this year. And I started to talk to him about Brooks. He told me, I don\'t support Brooks because I think he is good, I support him cause he is who we have. And that was good enough for him. He is a diehard Saints fan, season ticket holder too. Hornets as well. He criticized AB, saying he noticed as he sat at every game that AB locked onto one receiver, usually Horn, and that was it, no matter who was open. No progression no nothing. But he didn\'t make excuses for it. He stated it as fact, and still voiced his support for AB cause he is who we have. I have more respect for his \"he is who we have\" mindset than all the excuses AB gets. And before everyone gets into a tizzy, I am not saying I don\'t respect any of you guys cause I respect every one of you, just not the excuses given for AB. I hope you all understand the difference.

[Edited on 18/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

another i cant hepp it thread
 

You\'re right, there is a time when these mistakes are too much to take. however, that time comes when we have someone at QB that we can be confident in doing better. We don\'t have that now and we might not have it by the time the season starts.

Any QB we bring in will basically be dealing with the same problems that AB deals with (AKA excuses). I am just not ready to trade one QB who gets some things done while looking at times like a blundering fool for a QB that cannot get those same things done. That\'s the bottomline. It\'s not really about what AB can or cannot do. It\'s about who we have to replace him. I got off track and started trying to justify AB, but that\'s because other were off-track and were blaming AB.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Understood.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

I gotta tell you, whodi, that I almost fell out of my chair when I read this one. I said to myself, \"Now this has got to take the cake.\" If this does not prove the point about all of the excuses made for AB, then I don\'t know what would. I am still chuckling, can\'t help it. Scotty, please don\'t take offense to my comment, I sincerely am not trying to tick you off. I have a suspicion that you made this comment to sort of \"jerk our chains\", maybe smiling yourself as you typed it. Were you?

another i cant hepp it thread
 

I didn\'t say the information wasn\'t correct, it\'s just that without the raw number there\'s no context to put it in. Peyton Manning, arguably the best QB in the NFL, is #2 in this category. If Brooks is way out of wack (like 9-11 RZTO) then it\'s much more meaningful than if the number is 5.

The moderates are very clear about Brooks. The guy\'s got problems. The guy also produces. The offense the guy is in wins when the team defense is average. According to NFL.com stats defenses giving up an average of 21 PPG were in the middle of the pack (Atlanta was 14th at 21.1). Stats over the last 4 years shows that the offense with Brooks at the helm would win 11-12 games a year if the defense were average (20-8 for a 714 winning percentage)

Each and every other QB that has been brought to the table so far either isn\'t a starter (McMahon) or is a castoff from another team (Warner, Bledsoe, Garcia, etc.)

It\'s so clear to Brooks bashers that the guy is a cancer and he needs to get gone as quickly as possible. Moderates understand that he has problems, but that there is nothing yet so egregious that he needs to be cast off.

If next year he throws 22 picks, loses 10 fumbles, pa22es for 2400 yards and 15 TD, a line similar to Vick\'s this year, then I\'ll be calling for his head.

I\'m done on this thread. I\'ll catch ya\'ll arguing elsewhere.

SFIAH

[Edited on 18/2/2005 by SaintFanInATLHELL]

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Not entirely LB. My point which maybe I didn\'t get across is that it\'s tougher to get things done in the Red Zone. If I am wrong, please let me know.

I applied this to AB\'s red zone INTs by suggesting that the other offense problems exacerbate the increased difficulty of playing in the red zone. I think that is fairly valid. It doesn\'t excuse AB and I\'m not wanting to do that. My point is that other factors contribute to certain things and these red zone turnovers cannot be looked at in a vacuum of AB\'s play alone.

If it\'s the stupidest thing I\'ve ever said then so be it. At least it got a laugh!

another i cant hepp it thread
 

No, Scotty, you are not wrong. I can\'t tell you how many times I\'ve heard the commentators say, \"They\'re in the red-zone now, the going gets tougher down here.\" The thing that I found humorous was that no matter what is said negative about AB, there is always a \"yeah, but....\", which was already mentioned earlier, in this thread, I think.

For what it is worth, Scotty, I do see the points that you and the others are making regarding AB and can totally understand all of your reasoning. I don\'t dislike AB, and would love to see him shut me up next year. I have to say, however, that in all my years of following the Saints, I can\'t remember anyone who has had such ups and downs. I can\'t remember any person who was so good at times that he would have people supporting him come hell or high water, and who has had so many lows that he would have so many people calling for his head...and all at the same time. To tell you the truth, I don\'t know what would happen to this forum if he were to leave...what would we have to talk about. Would it still be so addicting...I think not.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Way to take up the sword Scotty and SFIAH. Well done gentlemen.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

JK, just curious. You ever consider trying out for the Saintsations? You\'d make a great cheerleader. :cheering:

another i cant hepp it thread
 

I think we all need to go back and read the 9-page \"Brooks\" thread again. I did, and it\'s the best (and most civil) of all the AB arguments. Beyond that, it encompasses most everything being said in any of the other AB threads.

Anyway, looks like us poor AB haters are starting to lose the siege. The pro bowl was less than a week ago, yet the season has already been over long enough for everyone to forget how lousy AB was this year. More folks are defending him again, and the pendulum swings...

But, AB is not in real life what he is in your Madden 2005 game (he\'s having a great year for me there ... ha!), and all of you who want to keep AB are unfortunately likely to get your wish.

I hope it makes you very happy...

:killtard:

another i cant hepp it thread
 

We traded for a QB from the Packers,

Who smiled as he threw to linebackers.

He thinks it\'s real funny,

That they pay him so much money,

Despite having so many detractors. :P :D

another i cant hepp it thread
 

A couple of points:

1. I really think there are three groups of folks in the AB debate:

A. AB fans. I think Billy is the only card carry memeber. Thinks like AB walks on water. Progenitor of this thread.

B. The moderates. That\'s me, JKool, Saintfan for the most part. I think we\'re the only realists. Thinks that AB is good, but not that good. Thinks AB has problems but not so many problems that he is THE PROBLEM! in which getting rid of him will fix all of the Saints woes. Tries to use stats and reason to show that while AB has some problems, that there are other more pressing problems that needs to be addressed first. Moderates do not think that anyone else in the league can come in and make this team so significantly better in its current configuration. Moderates think that Brooks production, despite his faults, warrants shoring up other areas of the team first. Moderates who wish Brooks wouldn\'t help in these debates and just keep his yap shut. This moderate group is often misclassified as group A above. But as I said, Billy is the only card carrying member of that group that I\'m aware of. I\'ve noticed that all of us in this group have started labeling ourselves moderates.

C. The AB haters. Brooks sucks. Brooks is THE PROBLEM! who is \"lousy\" and can\'t get anything done. Haters who thinks he is the one person in the organization personally responsible for the Saints not winning and not making the playoffs. They thinks that the guy is a CANCER that should be excised post haste.

LB, who BTW I\'m glad decided to stick around, has posted some of the mindset of group C. It a frustration about the fact that Brooks has stuck while the organization let other QBs, like Delhomme, Bulger, and O\'Sullivan get away.
Points to the potential casality of the fact that everything else in the organization has changed personnelwise in the last 4 years of the playoff shutout except for the QB position. So since we can\'t get into the playoffs, and that\'s the only position that hasn\'t changed, that that lack of change is the reason.

I\'m a moderate. Plain and simple. Brooks has problems, but Brooks isn\'t THE PROBLEM! that\'s dragging the team down. Yes I\'d like to see him get his total turnovers under 15, total fumbles under 10, and for him to keep his yap shut. Yes he makes the occasional stupid play. I\'d like him to scramble more because I think he needs to realize that sometimes it\'s more important just to move the chains and keep the ball then firing it downfield. Sometimes he does have too much of a radar lock on a single receiver.

And I do believe that we need to get another talented QB in here. But is has to be at a budget price.

But all of the moderates draw the line at summary dismissal. And the numbers are simple on that. There are only two QBs in the league who has put up 20+ TDs and 3500+ yards in each of the last 4 seasons. Peyton Manning is one. Guess who\'s the other?

The Saints win at a .714 winning percentage (20-8 the last 4 seasons) when the team holds the opposition to under 21 points. That\'s a middle of the road defense. It happened in each of the last 4 games. In 13 of the 16 wins the team has had in the last 2 years, the opposition has been held under 21 points. I don\'t have shootout stats handy (where both teams scored more than 21 points). But I\'m willing to bet that it doesn\'t exceed 13/16 or 20/28.

That doesn\'t absolve AB of blame. He still can\'t turn the ball over. But it points to the fact that our offense is good enough to complete if the defense keeps up.

And every playoff stat that you can find shows that you have to have defense, pretty much regardless of the offense, in order to compete in the playoffs.

As a card carrying moderate in this debate that\'s what you\'ll hear me continue to argue: beef up the defense. The offense right now requires a few tweaks. But they were 14th in the league in scoring offense last year, while the defense was 28th.

I\'d just like to point out that defense got better the last 4 games of the season. The team went 4-0. It\'s an indicator.

I won\'t be happy if the defense doesn\'t continue to improve. I won\'t be happy if Brooks doesn\'t get his total turnovers under 15, which is possible if he gets his INTs back to 2003 levels (8) and keeps the 2004 fumbles lost (2).

In the end no one but the Brooks haters will be happy, because he\'s eventually going too become to costly to keep. His salary takes a big jump this year to $5.5 mil along with a $250k workout bonus. Along with his prorated bonus money his cap number this year is $7.7 mil. It\'ll only cost the Saints a little under $6 mil in a cap hit to trade or release him. In short the Saints are no longer upside down financially on Brooks as it\'ll be cheaper to get rid of him than it would be to pay him. And that number will separate further each succeeding season.

You can find the article here: http://profootballtalk.com/12-01-04through12-15-04.htm

So the debate may be over soon. Soon we may be talking about how the new Saints QB compares to Brooks.

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

I agree with you Billy, but your stats are not correct.

That Saints finished 14th in scoring defense in 2003 and 28th in 2004.

Neither is last.

In 2003 the Saints defense held the opposition to under 21 points 11 times. The team went 8-3 in those games. The team as 0-5 in the remaining 5 games where the team gave up more than 20 points.

In 2004 the team was 5-1 when the opposition was held to under 21 points and 3-7 in the remaining 10 games when the opposition scored 21 or more.

The stats points to your observation, but in neither case was the team last in scoring defense.

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

SaintFanInATLHELL--

Make that 4 groups of folks in the AB debate.

#4: GumboBC. Knows all of Brooks strengths and weaknesses, and just likes to piss off the hard core Brooks bashers who make no logical posts.

Believe me, I\'ve exahausted every possible angle there is to reason with the Brooks\' bashers. But, in the end, we still have to read 1000 \"Brooks\' sucks and I don\'t care what anyone says\" posts.

Your posts are well thoughtout and logical. I appreciate the effort. But, you might as well be talking to a wall as far as some members are concerned. You probably already know that.

Anyway, I don\'t waste my time anymore. I just take an extreme stance on the other side of the fence. Somebody\'s gotta do it........ :D

[Edited on 19/2/2005 by GumboBC]

another i cant hepp it thread
 

What a joke!! :D

another i cant hepp it thread
 

SaintFanInATLHELL--

You are correct about the points our defense gave up. And you\'re correct on our win/loss record when a the defense holds an opponent to a respecable score.

But, our defense still ranks near the bottom of the league in most catergories. Like run defense. And it allows the opposing team to run a bunch of time off the clock. I think that\'s gotta be taken into consideration also.

I really appreciate the fact that you bring facts into the debate and make very good observations.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

LB, if you look at some other posters work, you\'ll see that they do this more often than I.

I think for the number of times I\'ve defended this view at length and I felt all alone, I just wanted these guys to know that I agreed with them, even if I didn\'t have time to join in the fray that day.

I know you\'re just having fun, so this doesn\'t apply to you LB, but for those who don\'t see that, I\'d just like to say this: sometimes it is just nice to hear that someone read what you wrote and thought it wasn\'t stupid - especially in light of the fact that the people responding seem to be implying that what you said was stupid.

PS - I\'m not in good enough shape to be a Staintation. :)

another i cant hepp it thread
 

I was gonna leave this debate alone but I can\'t let this lie rest. Get yourself out of the moderate category SFIAH cause it is CLEAR by this post you love Brooks as you try to paint yourself in the most glowing light, while downing others. I knew your true colors would come out. I have not heard one person say Brooks is THE PROBLEM. They have said he is A PROBLEM THAT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED FOR YEARS. Your Brooks love obviously prevents you from seeing the difference. I can see Scotty as moderate, and JKool, but you most definitely are not. Kool or Scotty may use the term Brooks bashers, but not haters cause noone has said they hated him. I and others who want him gone have said NUMEROUS times we wish beyond wish he would do better. But he doesn\'t. And he hasn\'t. IT is so evident to me what side of the fence you swing from, stop fooling yourself. I would never expect to see a post like this from Scotty or Kool, but I knew from your posts your true colors would come out eventually. Why\'d it take so long? It\'s obvious you don\'t read what is posted and have a pre-formed opinion. Well, i\'m not gonna let you pass it of as fact. Get your head around this. WE DO NOT HATE BROOKS, at least I don\'t. We are simply tired of his cancerous nature and stupid mistakes hurting this team. See the difference? 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? Probably not cause then you can make up some other myth. Do you have a I\'m a Deuce moderate and everyone else hates him plan too? Be for real. At least know what you are talking about before you rant.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Just to complete my thought, there is no such thing on this forum as a \"Brooks moderate.\" And here is why. The only time you see JKool and Scotty in a Brooks thread are if they are defending him. That\'s it. When someone starts a I wanna have Brooks\' baby thread, until someone comes in to counter the point, they don\'t show up. And you usually get an excellent post or a nice point to the ones defending Brooks and bubkus for those who knock him, even though they are using facts and good arguments as well. This is no knock to Kool and Scotty, but a knock to the whole Brooks moderate idea. There are 3 categories of Brooksians on here.

1. The I wish Brooks would marry me crowd, which consists of one as far as I know. When someone says they don\'t care if we win or lose with Brooks, they only care that he is here cause those who want him gone don\'t get their wish, it is better to not even listen to them. They are gone.

2. Brooks defenders. Some say they are moderate, wouldn\'t mind seeing someone better, but they only come out in defense of Brooks. Some blindly support him. Whatever the case may be, they defend Brooks FAR MORE than they ever speak out against him. They may concede a point here and there, but you better believe there is a yeah but waiting with it. That\'s not moderate at all. Moderates defend both sides evenly, there is none of that here. No knock on anyone, look back for yourself.

3. Those who are just fed up with Brooks. Enough is enough. OPENLY ADMIT there are other problems, but know also QB is A PROBLEM and are ready for that to change cause it has been a problem for more than one season. Labeled bashers although the points used against Brooks are facts. This group also seems to include the national media and fans from other NFL teams. They seem to be very large in number and extend beyond this forum. But calling them bashers allows for the argument to be used that they have a bias, which isn\'t true. Some people are fed up with the LB situation, why aren\'t they biased? Some are fed up with the tackle situation, why aren\'t they biased bashers? Only when it comes to Brooks do you get labeled a basher, and that shows 100% proof that there are no moderates here, or else we would have people being labeled Gandy bashers, and Hodge bashers, and Sullivan bashers, and Riley bashers. I have yet to hear any of that.

So it\'s all good. But let\'s call a spade a spade. No moderates here, the whole idea is ludicrous. Nothing wrong with being a Brooks defender, just like nothing wrong with being an I wanna see Brooks go bye bye person. It\'s all a matter of perception. Let\'s be real with each other and stop hiding behind labels.