another i cant hepp it thread
 

I know of one guy that talks about AB 99% of the time he spends on the board. He used to bring him in every thread.

The guys\' a Brooks HATER. He\'s just scared to admit it. He\'ll come out of the closet soon... :o

another i cant hepp it thread
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 19/2/2005 by JKool]

another i cant hepp it thread
 

JKool --

I want you to know I read every word in your last post. That might be the best post I have ever read on this baord.

Seriously!! Damn good post.... :exclam:

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Why not simplify things with your groupings?

A) There are those who want the Saints to win no matter
what it takes.

B) There are those who want the Saints to win as long as
AB is the QB.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Because there is no one in camp (B). The camps, if there are any are way more complicated than that.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Give me a break!! I know that there is at least one person who falls into B, and I suspect a whole lot more who just won\'t own up to it!!

another i cant hepp it thread
 

I won\'t give you a break on this one. I like you, and I think you are both a fun and good poster, but you\'re just wrong on this one. There is no such person.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Who would that be?

I hope everyone wants us to win as long as AB is the QB. What does group B mean. You don\'t want us to win as long as AB is the QB. You let the cat outta the bag!!

another i cant hepp it thread
 

I took him to mean that those people want us to win if and only if AB is the QB.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Yeah, I know what he meant. And I know who he was refering to.

I would trade AB straight-up for:

1. Peyton Manning
2. Donavan McNabb
3. Tom Brady

I would not trade him for:

1. Your neighbor down the street.
2. Your uncle\'s first cousin.
3. Or Jake Delhomme... :P

another i cant hepp it thread
 

You wouldn\'t!! That\'s too bad...dude\'s got game!! :D

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Sorry, wrong answer, for my posts anyway. The bashers are so vast in number that there is little need to add to what is pointed out as AB negatives. My position, which I refrain from stating again, means that I feel like reigning in those extremist views on either side. Again, because there are so many in opposition to AB there is sufficient rallying against the pro-AB stance and rarely a need for me to chime in there unless I think I can add a novel perspective.

In the end, the number of posts I make either way shouldn\'t matter any way. What should matter is the content. If you look at my retorts, they are not defenses of AB as much as they are intended to deflate an overstatement of AB\'s responsibility for our team\'s failure.

I read this and felt the need to respond while it was fresh. I haven\'t read much past it, but I will now. It looks awful interesting.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

I\'d be surprised to find out that we\'re not ALL in this category.

Deuce is one of my favorite players. Turley was one of my favorites until the JETS meltdown (I agree with wanting to do what he did, just not with the lack of self control). I was all for getting rid of Turley because I thought it would help the team just as I\'d be for getting rid of Deuce if I thought it\'d help us win a superbowl. It wont, though (Danno).

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Billy,

Say it with me:

Raven\'s Waterboy, Raven\'s Waterboy, Raven\'s Waterboy...

another i cant hepp it thread
 

It doesn\'t work. These are only mutually exclusive as long as you believe that the Saints cannot win if Brooks is the QB.

How about:

B) There are those who believe that the Saints can win only if AB isn\'t the QB.

That\'s probably closer.

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

No problem.

I think that a lot of elements go into scoring defense. But in the end teams win games when they score more than the other team. Lower scoring games favors the Saints because there\'s a more controlled balanced game on the offensive side of the ball when the score in close.

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Wow, beautiful responses, mostly. Kool, you are absotively right. I argued against grouping, read the post I was responding to again, and got pissed off all over again and responded again. Look at the disparity in times I posted. I decided if grouping was necessary I would give it a shot. Your response was both well thought out and more or less what I expected. There should be NO grouping, but there is. The possible categories we all can fall into are endless. I have said NUMEROUS times if Brooks\' stats came without all the mistakes I have to live with, I would never speak out against him. If that makes me hate him, so be it. I see both you and Scotty had the \"so many people speak out against Brooks already\" answer, and I understand that. And that\'s all good. But if you are truly in the middle, on the fence, whatever, the response should not only be to the person against Brooks, but also to the person who supports Brooks. That makes it seem more evenly that you are truly undecided. I know both of you have said you were, but just like I can give the impression I hate Brooks, you guys can give the impression of undying supporters, not saying you are, just that it\'s an impression that can be drawn. I know both of you have told me clearly where you stand, but when we get into 4 and 5 pages of Brooks defenses, that tends to show a lean towards a side. But damn Kool, I respect the time you put into your post. Mad love and respect to you and Scotty. Like I said initially I wasn\'t dissing either of you, just the ideas of moderates, and groups in general as a response to SFIAH\'s post that anyone who wasn\'t in love with Brooks was a hater. Didn\'t mean to draw ya\'ll in, just to make a point.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

As was I
I have no need to paint myself as anything. And may seem that I\'m a Brooks lover because all I really get to do here is to discuss attributes that are in the positive direction for Brooks, because so many folks in camp C rail away about how the guy needs to get gone.

A vehemently, stridently and vociferously as the negative side of this debate has been going on for over two years, what else would you have me label it?

I find it interesting that folks can dispassionately call Brooks a cancer but somehow not be a hater.

Not only do I read it, but I always quote it when I respond.

In your eyes I must be a Brooks lover because I point out despite his faults, it\'s not enough to warrant starting over at the QB position. Or that simply by replacing Brooks, that all of a sudden that the Saints will become playoff bound winners. But that\'s what I read on the other side of the debate on a daily basis.

It\'s not a preformed opinion. It\'s a opinion based on facts that I bring to the discussion. Here\'s the typical discussion from my view:

\"We need to get rid of Brooks. He\'s a cancer.\"

\"Let\'s trade Brooks for QB XYZ.\"

\"Brooks isn\'t smart enough to be an NFL QB.\"

\"Brooks is the reason this team cannot make it to the playoffs.\"

When I don\'t see anyout out there that\'s significantly better that\'s available and we can afford. When I see the best 4 year run by a QB in the history of the franchise. When I see a QB that\'s 20-8 when the team holds the opposition to under 21 points.

I also see a QB who makes bonehead plays, who doesn\'t run enough, and who I wish beyond wishing would just shut up when anyone sticks a mike in his face.


See? There it is again. If Brooks were really a cancer don\'t you think that someone, anyone, that is actually in the Saints organization would say something?

Let\'s call Brooks a cancer, but don\'t \"hate\" him.

I find that disingenuous.

Actually I\'ve been meaning to get on Billy about Deuce. He didn\'t do as well this year because he lost his safety net.in Terrell Smith. But I believe in the last 3 years he has proven his worth and should get the contract.

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Whodi, I think some of us just put out our best (you included) as often as possible - it can be frustrating to come up against what feels like a brick wall, time and again.

I said this a long time ago, but it might be worth saying again. It isn\'t really of much value to try and assess the psychology, desires, or agendas of other posters (sometimes, but rarely, does this get anywhere). What we ought to talk about is whether or not their arguments are good, bad, middling, what have you. This is of more interest than what camp they fall in.

So, I\'m inclined to agree with you that putting people in camps is often relatively fruitless, including the group moderate. Sometimes it helps to simplify arguments, but generally it is just frustrating.

I can understand that.

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.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

I don\'t think it did though. In fact if his back checks out, I\'d be in favor of bringing Turley back. I do belive that he has burned his bridges in St. Louis.

(I snipped the rest)

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Thanks for the great observations JKool.

I get frustrated in these discussions because it seems that much of the blame for the Saints\' problems falls to Brooks. And as you point out, that any attempt to spread that blame then labels you as a Brooks Lover making excuses for the guy.

SFIAH

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Kool, I am all for blame/praise distribution, but simply put, the QB touches the ball more than anyone else. Thus it equates that he would get more blame AND his mistakes are magnified. But as you so often point out, it is all in how much blame you wanna assign to him, and how much others do. I think that is the only difference between all of us, how much blame we are assigning to Brooks. I rarely hear anyone say he is good. Very rarely. I only here potential and can be talented and noone better out there right now. While not a glowing endorsement, it is a reason for support. It\'s accepted. Thanks for the explanation.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

since this epic thread was started from some other fans quotes just for entertainment, how about a few more. from a falcons board-

Brooks finally cracked this week when asked again about Delhomme, complaining that Delhomme never capitalized on his chances in New Orleans. He also described Delhomme as a good quarterback with a great cast, while Brooks said he was the opposite: A great quarterback with a good cast.

So after beating Delhomme and the Panthers, it seemed as if Brooks would finally be at peace.

He wasn\'t.

\"I really don\'t have much to say to none of y\'all,\" he said. \"I said after the game that I\'d be laughing at y\'all, the fake experts in the media. All y\'all been talking (expletive) on Aaron Brooks.\"

lol.. aaron brooks is an idiot.. did he see some of his passes this year? did he see the inconsistent play of him the past few years.. how many times did he throw backwards to no one this year? just plain horrible..

Brooks blows. . .

Saints got the evil cousin
we got the better end of the deal..

oh, goodness. bar the doors when they start talking in the third person.

sounds like leon, to me. haven\'t seen delhomme throw a backwards pass to his lineman yet. both of those guys are in the same league. solid, but not great, qb\'s

Brooks is too funny...he\'s about as money as a QB who might throw a backwards pass to his own lineman.

lol... you got that right, at least his passes are forward..

Saints fans have to hate having Brooks and Horn on their team. The \"Me First\" attitudes are killing that team. The Bad far outweighs the good with that pair!

The Saints, IMO, have a good bit of talent on their team. Too bad for them they can\'t get it all going at one time. Unfortunately they DID against us yesterday.
Brooks is definitely a \"Leon\". So\'s Horn.

But Horn can at least back it up

HES JUST FIZZED AT THE ###### BIASED MEDIA THOSE ##### LOSERS

-----
http://boards.atlantafalcons.com/ind...howtopic=62199


[Edited on 20/2/2005 by LKelley67]

another i cant hepp it thread
 

lions board with a suggestion of trading harrington for brooks-

Would Aaron Brooks be an acceptable trade for Joey if we did decide to deal him? Both QBs have worn out their welcome and can afford to start over. Anyway, would this be a good trade or no?

No and I will tell you why:
HARRINGTON FOR PRO-BOWL NEXT YEAR BABY YEAH!!!!!!!!!

As crazy as this sounds, I wouldnt do it. Brooks is decent, but i have high hopes for Joey

I too really liked Brooks at the start of the year. I had him on my fantasy team (which, we all know makes me an expert on him..LOL) and then I really watched him and I saw that he\'s kinda a spurty QB. He doesn\'t play at a high level every game (like one time he threw for like 40 yards--low guess, but it was real bad) and he\'s pretty so/so as a passer--he REALLY gets help from Deuce and Horn. I would think if he\'s a FA and is looking to get out of NO...That would be great to get him in camp, but, to give up on Joe for him is like trading for the same. Joe is younger and still will have good years (even if they\'re not here) Brooks has only got three or four more seasons left before he becomes a back up. Just what I think.

this is the most ridiculous idea/post/comment/trade proposal ever. have you SEEN Brooks play? i would take Joey over him any day.

That one play where Brooks threw the ball about 20 yards backwards just sticks out in my mind. Plus he has had great talent around him and the Saints seem to find ways to not make the playoffs. So, no thanks.

Aaron Brooks would be perfect for those who want an \'exciting\' quarterback. You could watch for his fumbles, most of which occur at the most inconvenient times:
Aaron Brooks 72 games 55 fumbles 19 fumbles lost Fumbled in 76% of his games, lost 35% of his fumbles
Mike McMahon 20 games 11 fumbles 6 fumbles lost Fumbled in 55% of his games, lost 54% of his fumbles
Joey Harrington 46 games 14 fumbles 1 fumble lost Fumbled in 30% of his games, lost .07% of his fumbles
Aaron Brooks is a fumbler, pure and simple. The interesting thing is, if one is to believe the rumors, the Saints are considering picking Mike McMahon as his backup. They love fumblers.
(Stats from NFL.com - include all games, not just ones the player started.)
Sure, let\'s replace Joey with Brooks. Love the excitement of wondering just when the next one will happen.

I like the trade idea.

They both suck and it would be a meaningless trade for both teams. I dont think anyone wants harrington besides millen.

i can\'t believe a post with \"aaron brooks\" in the title has survived this long on a lions board.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

general nfl board-
Ya know, you really have to give it to the Saints. They played inspired ball in week 17 and knocked the Carolina Panthers out of the playoffs. Unfortunately, 8-8 won’t cut it for Jim Haslett, and he’ll likely be shown the door. Aaron Brooks should buy him a going away present. It’s a shame Hallmark doesn’t make “I’m sorry I’m overrated and my soft game got you fired� cards. It’s probably for the better. I know that Haslett’s a defensive guy, but I’d love to see him end up as the Ravens’ new offensive coordinator. If you can make good money betting against him and Aaron Brooks, just think of the payoff when he teams up with Kyle Boller!

http://sigmapi101.proboards27.com/in...num=1105196437

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Whodi, tight.

LK, hilarious. It makes me glad that I\'m here at B&G! I wouldn\'t want to have to deal with some of those yahoos.

:dancing:

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Let\'s break this thing down. First, I will try to list all of the reasons people are giving for wanting him replaced:

1) Have not made the playoffs in any of the 4 years that he has been the starter from the beginning.

2) Inconsistent...never know where the ball is going, or, never know which AB is going to show up

3) Turnovers at very inopportune times. Some fumbles unexplainable.

4) Egomaniac...his demeanor makes him unlikeable...Leon, or Smiley. Doesn\'t interview well, does not take responsiblity for mistakes, blames others.

5) Expensive, money could be used to solidify other areas of the team. The kind of money we are paying him does not seem to be justified by his level of play.

6) Lack of football smarts...doesn\'t read defenses well, poor at audibilizing, homes in on receivers, doesn\'t know the play-book well enough.

Now, here are the reasons given by the supporters as to why he should stay.

1) Talented

2) Not a suitable replacement on the roster

3) The replacement may do worse

4) Stats...will soon be all-time leader in passing yardage, if not already.

5) Don\'t want to go into a rebuilding mode.

There have been so many posts, I just want to try to sort everything out and see if I am understanding exactly what each sides main points are. If you disagree with any of these that I have listed, or want to add anything, feel free to do so. I really would like to come up with a final list for both sides that each side is satisfied with. Then we will at least be able to look at this thing with some perspective, without bouncing all over the place.


Now, for a little humor before I quit typing from one of my \"all time funniest posts\" files.

It was during the season of 2003, just a day or two before halloween, and there was a thread about what people were going to dress up like for halloween. One dude posted, \"I\'m going to be #2!!\" It was only moments later that another guy posted, \"You\'re going to be doo-doo?\" I\'m still laughing about that one, just thought I would share it.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

LB, funny

Kelley. funnier, I guess there are more biased haters than on this board. I wonder what their reasons for \"hating\" Brooks are. Seems like they have a personal stake in what the Saints do with their QB, even though they support OTHER teams. I wonder......

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Hey, a bunch of dirty Falcons fans are stealing my words! Un-original jerks...

Umm, sometimes I do ... but I\'ve only taken the \"Brooks Hater\" moniker because folks feel some strange need to classify each of us. I\'m not willing to fall prostrate and worship at AB\'s altar, ergo I must be a \"Hater.\"

As for the assertion that those of us in \"Camp C\" never admit there are other problems with the team - heck, even BIGGER ones - if you\'ve read any of the Brooks threads you know that simply isn\'t true. Good grief, how many times do we have to point out that we agree the defense is porous, we need help on the O-line, the coaching staff is stagnant, etc.???

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.

But, those posts from other threads about AB are priceless and hilarious. Original, too. Good stuff...

:seeingstars:

another i cant hepp it thread
 

Mutey a hater? Brilliant!! ;)

another i cant hepp it thread
 

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
Billy
Whodat
Billy

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.

another i cant hepp it thread
 

:rollinglaugh:

another i cant hepp it thread
 

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):

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]

another i cant hepp it thread
 

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: