another i cant hepp it thread

[JOESAM2002]

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

[SaintFanInATLHELL]

Also saintfan, help me out here, why are statements like \"we need help on o=line, our receivers drop balls, and we need better defense\" made out to be definitive statements but if someone says \"Brooks makes bone-headed plays,\" it always comes with a but. But this this and this.

Whodi,

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

Why don\'t Brooks defenders say, we have a bad o-line BUT our coaching is poor and the schemes were too complicated. Or our receivers drop balls BUT AB does not deliver the ball well at times and again coaches were poor. Or our defense was bad BUT it didn\'t help that our offense couldn\'t score in the first quarter and we had numerous turnovers and 3 and outs AND coaching was poor.

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!

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.

How come only AB gets the benefit of excuse after exucse after excuse, when like someone else pointed out, his has been the only position not to change in the last 5 years and we are still mediocre? I think this lends to the feeling there are some who feel AB can do no wrong.

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.

Make excuses for the whole team if you are gonna make excuses, not the one person on the team just about EVERYONE, including people on other forums and the media, criticize.

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! 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

[SaintFanInATLHELL]

Whodi,

I\'m going to go into taboo territory to make a point:

Just to make sure it\'s understood where I am coming from, we do know Tom Brady has the CHOICE NOT to fling a game losing interception in Miami right? And he has a choice NOT to throw 4 interceptions to Miami\'s defenders right? These are things not brought on by the line or the receivers or the defense, but the CHOICES Tom Brady makes. So maybe if we look at the fact the mistakes he is more criticized for are ones he has an option NOT TO MAKE, then maybe we can get close to being on the same accord. And this is after FOUR YEARS as a starter and winning 3 SuperBowls.

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:

Doctor, the patient is having a heart attack, stroke, liver failure, and a scratch on her leg.

and the Doc replies

Well we need to amputate!

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

[SaintFanInATLHELL]

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.

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

[SaintFanInATLHELL]

Whodi,

The point isn\'t to say that he [Brooks] 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.

Amen.

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

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

[SaintFanInATLHELL]

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.

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?

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?

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

[Saint_LB]

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]

[JKool]

(1) Nice work SFIAH. Well put.

(2)

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.

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)

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?

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]

[Saint_LB]

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.

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.

[SaintFanInATLHELL]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

SAINTS WILL SAVE ON CAP BY DUMPING BROOKS

Earlier on Wednesday, we reported that the Saints are exploring the possibility of trading or releasing quarterback Aaron Brooks. Based on salary information we\'ve obtained for Brooks in 2005, clearing Brooks off of the books makes a lot of sense.

As it turns out, our estimate of the annual cap proration for Brooks\' signing and option bonus was on the money at $1.98 million per year for 2005 through 2007. Dumping Brooks before June 1 or trading him at any time will result in a $5.96 million cap hit.

Keeping him, however, will require the Saints to pay Brooks a salary of $5.5 million and a workout bonus of $250,000.

So with a 2005 cap number of $7.73 million, the Saints will save $1.77 million on the 2005 cap by trading Brooks -- even more by dumping him after June 1.

Our guess -- Brooks is at the end of the road in New Orleans.

Maybe he can hook up with the Falcons and play backup to cousin Mike.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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