Brooks turnovers. How does he stack up?

GumboBC · 02-22-2005, 11:35 AM

Not quite, IMO. The Pats had an avereage time of possession of 31.22 minutes/game while the Saints had 28.18. From these numbers couldn\'t you make a case for the defense by saying that if the offense were on the field longer the defense might be giving up less points. Just a thought. Of course, I know that the response will be that if the defense could get off the field, then maybe the offense could have the ball longer. Either could be the case, I suppose.

Saint_LB-

I was only joking when I said \"nuff said\". I hate when folks tell me that.. \'cause I\'ve always got plenty to say on just about every subject...

How quickly we forget just how awful our defense was for the first 12-games. It was on pace to be the worst defense in over 40-years. Quite frankly, I cannot remember seeing a defense that was any worse.

We can debate how the offfense affected the defense.

What\'s not debateable is the ONLY time our defense was effective is when it was on the bench!!

Just think back to the first 12 games. How did you feel when our defense was trying to stop the run? Warrick Dunn? Emmit Smith? ANYBODY?

How did you feel in the first 12 games when we faced Culpepper, Brees, Haselbeck, ANYBODY?

I can remember EXACTLY how I felt!!

Saint_LB · 02-22-2005, 11:43 AM

Not quite, IMO. The Pats had an avereage time of possession of 31.22 minutes/game while the Saints had 28.18. From these numbers couldn\'t you make a case for the defense by saying that if the offense were on the field longer the defense might be giving up less points. Just a thought. Of course, I know that the response will be that if the defense could get off the field, then maybe the offense could have the ball longer. Either could be the case, I suppose.

Saint_LB-

I was only joking when I said \"nuff said\". I hate when folks tell me that.. \'cause I\'ve always got plenty to say on just about every subject...

How quickly we forget just how awful our defense was for the first 12-games. It was on pace to be the worst defense in over 40-years. Quite frankly, I cannot remember seeing a defense that was any worse.

We can debate how the offfense affected the defense.

What\'s not debateable is the ONLY time our defense was effective is when it was on the bench!!

Just think back to the first 12 games. How did you feel when our defense was trying to stop the run? Warrick Dunn? Emmit Smith? ANYBODY?

How did you feel in the first 12 games when we faced Culpepper, Brees, Haselbeck, ANYBODY?

I can remember EXACTLY how I felt!!

Just remember that during these games the offense was failing miseably during the first quarter. This can cause early fatigue in the defense, and it is demoralizing...possibly giving the defense the attitude of \"what\'s the point.\" There is no doubt that the statements you made were valid, I am only questioning whether the reason was a talent issue, or more an issue of fatigue and attitude. I certainly don\'t pretend to know which is the case, I just find it strange that the same personnel can look like two different teams from the first 12 games to the last 4.

ScottyRo · 02-22-2005, 11:50 AM

I don\'t know which way to fall on this issue. the D didn\'t look good, but it\'s hard to say exactly how much the Offense caused some problems. I can\'t say that the first qtr thing really makes much of a difference since in the last 4 games the Offense still didn\'t do any better in the 1st qtr but the D played better overall. That would seem to indicate that the Offense not scoring in the 1st qtr had little to do with the D throughout the game.

saintswhodi · 02-22-2005, 11:58 AM

In at least 2 of the last 4 games Scotty the special teams scored in the first quarter. That was a difference the defense had not seen all year. The main difference in the team was special teams and D stepped up, and stopped waiting for the offense to get it done. Weak opponents didn\'t hurt this either.

GumboBC · 02-22-2005, 12:03 PM

I am only questioning whether the reason was a talent issue, or more an issue of fatigue and attitude. I certainly don\'t pretend to know which is the case, I just find it strange that the same personnel can look like two different teams from the first 12 games to the last 4.

How quickly we forget just how ineffective Deuce was the first part of the season.

Deuce game by game:

Seattle L- 16 for 57yds -
San Francisco W 3 for-1yd - Deuce got injured.
@Arizona L - Did Not Play
Tampa Bay L -21 for 102- fumbled twice and one was run back or a TD.
Minnesota 18 for 78yds
Oakland W 24 for 42 - Averaged 1.8 yards on 24 carries
San Diego L 17 for 43yds.
Denver L 13 for 42yds.
Carolina 7 for 22
Dallas W 30 for 83yds - Averaged 2.8 yards on 30 carries.
Tampa Bay W 25 for 89yds - Averaged 3.5 yards on 25 carries.

After that game Deuce got healthy and we went 4-1 during that stretch. The only loss during the last 5 games was to the Falcons. Brooks and the offense drove the length of the field for a TD leaving Vick under 2 minutes and they scored a TD at the end of the game to win.

Saint_LB · 02-22-2005, 12:32 PM

I am only questioning whether the reason was a talent issue, or more an issue of fatigue and attitude. I certainly don\'t pretend to know which is the case, I just find it strange that the same personnel can look like two different teams from the first 12 games to the last 4.

How quickly we forget just how ineffective Deuce was the first part of the season.

Deuce game by game:

Seattle L- 16 for 57yds -
San Francisco W 3 for-1yd - Deuce got injured.
@Arizona L - Did Not Play
Tampa Bay L -21 for 102- fumbled twice and one was run back or a TD.
Minnesota 18 for 78yds
Oakland W 24 for 42 - Averaged 1.8 yards on 24 carries
San Diego L 17 for 43yds.
Denver L 13 for 42yds.
Carolina 7 for 22
Dallas W 30 for 83yds - Averaged 2.8 yards on 30 carries.
Tampa Bay W 25 for 89yds - Averaged 3.5 yards on 25 carries.

After that game Deuce got healthy and we went 4-1 during that stretch. The only loss during the last 5 games was to the Falcons. Brooks and the offense drove the length of the field for a TD leaving Vick under 2 minutes and they scored a TD at the end of the game to win.

So, by your own admission, it wasn\'t until the offense stepped up their game that the defense became better, unless I am reading this wrong.

SaintFanInATLHELL · 02-23-2005, 11:55 PM

SFIAH, this is funny. I pointed out to you TWO cases where Brooks directly led to our defense giving up more than 20 points, and you jump back on our defense. I wonder if you could look up the QB rating of those last 16 Superbowl teams and see if their QB led the league in A) lost fumbles or B) red zone turnovers. I asked before for you to qualify the numbers you found and seem to post often about us winning when the defense holds a team under 20 by finding out how many MORE games than what I pointed out AB was DIRECTLY responsible for it going over 20. SO then you divert the convo, I answer that, and you jump off on the defense tangent at first opportunity. So I will reinstate my initial request and the second request since you like throwing defensive numbers at us.

A) Please tell me how many times AB led directly to the team giving up over 20 points in the record you pointed out(I already gave you two).

B) Find out how many times in the last 16 Superbowls you pointed out the QB led the league in lost fumbles, or red zone turnovers. I know we have had a better running game the past few years than some Superbowl teams(Pats definitely except this year and the Bucs ), so find those stats please. Since your aim seemed to be to divert me from asking these kinds of questions, I will ask them again.

[Edited on 22/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

Whodi,

That requires research on individual plays. I\'ve never seen a stat in the NFL of how turnovers leads directly to points, like in basketball.

The only way to get a true measure is to swap the players and see what happens. But this isn\'t Madden.

I know you think I\'m just trying to get Brooks off the hook. I\'m not. However scoring defense, in whatever form, is a clear indicator of playoff success.

As an example take a look at the Giants last year. They were 5-1 not because of Warner, but because of the defense and the running game. When the defense was decimated, the team fell apart.

The OP in this thread stated that Brooks has 18 TOs and Brady has 3 rings. Am I saying that Brooks is a better QB? No. Am I even saying that Brooks is a SB caliber QB? No. (I in fact stated that in my last post).

All I\'m saying is that Brady is on a team with a better defense. And it\'s clear that you have to have defense to be successful, regardless of your QB.

The Colts have shown that the last 2 years.

And in parting I want to make sure that I grant you your point. Brooks and the offense does take some of the blame for the defensive play. They have too many turnovers, insufficient time of posession, and way to many stalled drives. This leads to the defense being on the field too much and in bad field position.

But ask yourself in all honesty if we replace Brooks with another veteran QB would the defense we had the first 12 games of last year have been a top 15 defense? Does Brooks get so much of the blame of the defensive play that replacing him would have gotten the defensive scoring average down 6 points a game? That Brooks is personally responsible for giving up 80 to 100 points to the opposition?

It\'s an open question. And no I\'m not going to take the time to analyze individual plays to determine the number of points Brooks personally gave up.

But I feel reasonably sure it isn\'t 80 to 100.

I point to the end of Minnesota game as an example. The offense scored on each of its last 3 drives. But so did Minnesota\'s. The defense had to only make 1 stop in the second half. They didn\'t.

Brooks is also culpable in that game. He threw a red zone interception that led to a 60 yard runback. Then Culpepper threw a 43 yard TD to Moss on the resulting drive.

Both units screwed up, not just Brooks who threw the INT, but the defense too who gave up the TD.

The 1st Atlanta game was another example of blame distribution. We all could see that with 3 minutes left all the Saints offense had to do was make a 1st down and win the game. McCarthy runs Deuce into the line twice, then Brooks couldn\'t convert the 3rd down play (a dumpoff according to the play by play here: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playby...0041128_NO@ATL)

The offense couldn\'t make one stinking first down.

But the team is up by 4 and the Falcons were 50 yards away from the end zone. The defense only needed to make one stop to win the game. We all know what happened.

So was that loss Brooks fault? Deuce\'s? McCarthy\'s? The defense?

I know that you and I see it differently. In the above case I\'d put the majority of the blame on the defense. Bracket Crumpler and make Vick throw the ball to someone (anyone) else.

But I have a suspicion that someone else may think that somehow the offense not making that first down is the reason that the 7 point were given up.

My thesis is simple: Even with the 3 and outs, even with Brooks bonehead plays, even with Deuce\'s dropping YPC, even with no tight end production, even with the receiver drops, even with the penalties, and even with the turnovers, that if the defense had played like they did the last 4 games, the Saints would have had a successful 2004 season. When the defense played better, the team won plain and simple.

I really do hear you when you say that Brooks\' play influences the performance of the defense. But you can\'t convince me that influence results in 5-6 PPG. And if the defense improved by 5-6 PPG, this team would be a force.

SFIAH

[Edited on 24/2/2005 by SaintFanInATLHELL]

saintswhodi · 02-24-2005, 10:38 AM

Nice breakdown SF, but my point is this. We only needed ONE more win to make the playoffs. Not a 5-6 point swing in average given up, but one more game. Now I posted in another thread how our defense held teams to minimal points in the first quarter repeatedly, for an average through all games of 7.3 points given up in the first quarter. Know what our average scoring was for our offense in the first quarter? Less than 3 points. I even gave drive charts from two different games. In the Arizona game, the Saints DID NOT SCORE on 10 of 11 possessions. TEN OF ELEVEN?!?!?!?!?!? That is horrendous. Against winless Arizona? In the Seattle game, The defense gave them the ball 3 times in the first half and only had given up 14 points by the half. Know how many we had? 7 points. Two games where had the offense done ANYTHING we could have and should have won. But they didn\'t. I am not gonna place it all on Brooks, although a good bit of it should be since in the AZ game he had another red zone TO, this one in the first quarter. It\'s on the whole offense. McCarthy, Brooks, Deuce, the line. We can want a top 10 D all our life but we don\'t have the talent to be. WE DO have the talent to be DECENT, if not for an anemic more often than not offense. That was my point. So when you pointed out your numbers, I just wanted to know how much culpability was on Brooks AND the offense for giving up those points. You don\'t have to research it even though it would have been interesting to know since I know two specific instances this year alone. A better offense would have equaled a better defense, no doubt in my mind. But ti\'s all good.

Also, to answer your question about another vet QB, I don\'t know. I think a good bit of the blame should fall on McCarthy and that stupid two tight end offense, which Deuce openly complained about before the season. They should have stuck to what they know. I do feel over the course of the season a vet QB who doesn\'t committ Brooks\' mistakes could have gotten us that one more win to make the playoffs though. I think we could have gotten that kind of difference. Look at the Minn game. The D held them to 7 points in the 1st quarter. Our O, ZERO POINTS. So while people want to balem the D for not holding them late, how about the O for not taking advantage of Minny\'s poor defense early?

Brooks is also culpable in that game. He threw a red zone interception that led to a 60 yard runback. Then Culpepper threw a 43 yard TD to Moss on the resulting drive.

Both units screwed up, not just Brooks who threw the INT, but the defense too who gave up the TD.

I think this is where we mainly part ways though. Look how nonchalantly you are able to brush off another red zone turnover. If you are sitting on the sideline, and you watch your offense take advantage after you DID stop an opposing team, only yo see them give the ball up with no points AGAIN, how pumped are you gonna be to go back on the field? That red zone turnover takes 3 or 7 points off the board for our TEAM, and it would not have been the first time our D had seen that this season. They do not have the talent or drive to repeatedly cover these mistakes. Which is what is being asked of them and in my opinion, is WAY too much.

02-22-2005, 11:35 AM	#61
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Brooks turnovers. How does he stack up? Not quite, IMO. The Pats had an avereage time of possession of 31.22 minutes/game while the Saints had 28.18. From these numbers couldn\'t you make a case for the defense by saying that if the offense were on the field longer the defense might be giving up less points. Just a thought. Of course, I know that the response will be that if the defense could get off the field, then maybe the offense could have the ball longer. Either could be the case, I suppose. Saint_LB- I was only joking when I said \"nuff said\". I hate when folks tell me that.. \'cause I\'ve always got plenty to say on just about every subject... How quickly we forget just how awful our defense was for the first 12-games. It was on pace to be the worst defense in over 40-years. Quite frankly, I cannot remember seeing a defense that was any worse. We can debate how the offfense affected the defense. What\'s not debateable is the ONLY time our defense was effective is when it was on the bench!! Just think back to the first 12 games. How did you feel when our defense was trying to stop the run? Warrick Dunn? Emmit Smith? ANYBODY? How did you feel in the first 12 games when we faced Culpepper, Brees, Haselbeck, ANYBODY? I can remember EXACTLY how I felt!!
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

02-22-2005, 11:43 AM	#62
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Brooks turnovers. How does he stack up? Not quite, IMO. The Pats had an avereage time of possession of 31.22 minutes/game while the Saints had 28.18. From these numbers couldn\'t you make a case for the defense by saying that if the offense were on the field longer the defense might be giving up less points. Just a thought. Of course, I know that the response will be that if the defense could get off the field, then maybe the offense could have the ball longer. Either could be the case, I suppose. Saint_LB- I was only joking when I said \"nuff said\". I hate when folks tell me that.. \'cause I\'ve always got plenty to say on just about every subject... How quickly we forget just how awful our defense was for the first 12-games. It was on pace to be the worst defense in over 40-years. Quite frankly, I cannot remember seeing a defense that was any worse. We can debate how the offfense affected the defense. What\'s not debateable is the ONLY time our defense was effective is when it was on the bench!! Just think back to the first 12 games. How did you feel when our defense was trying to stop the run? Warrick Dunn? Emmit Smith? ANYBODY? How did you feel in the first 12 games when we faced Culpepper, Brees, Haselbeck, ANYBODY? I can remember EXACTLY how I felt!! Just remember that during these games the offense was failing miseably during the first quarter. This can cause early fatigue in the defense, and it is demoralizing...possibly giving the defense the attitude of \"what\'s the point.\" There is no doubt that the statements you made were valid, I am only questioning whether the reason was a talent issue, or more an issue of fatigue and attitude. I certainly don\'t pretend to know which is the case, I just find it strange that the same personnel can look like two different teams from the first 12 games to the last 4.
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right!

02-22-2005, 11:50 AM	#63
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Brooks turnovers. How does he stack up? I don\'t know which way to fall on this issue. the D didn\'t look good, but it\'s hard to say exactly how much the Offense caused some problems. I can\'t say that the first qtr thing really makes much of a difference since in the last 4 games the Offense still didn\'t do any better in the 1st qtr but the D played better overall. That would seem to indicate that the Offense not scoring in the 1st qtr had little to do with the D throughout the game.

02-22-2005, 11:58 AM	#64
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Brooks turnovers. How does he stack up? In at least 2 of the last 4 games Scotty the special teams scored in the first quarter. That was a difference the defense had not seen all year. The main difference in the team was special teams and D stepped up, and stopped waiting for the offense to get it done. Weak opponents didn\'t hurt this either.

02-22-2005, 12:03 PM	#65
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Brooks turnovers. How does he stack up? I am only questioning whether the reason was a talent issue, or more an issue of fatigue and attitude. I certainly don\'t pretend to know which is the case, I just find it strange that the same personnel can look like two different teams from the first 12 games to the last 4. How quickly we forget just how ineffective Deuce was the first part of the season. Deuce game by game: Seattle L- 16 for 57yds - San Francisco W 3 for-1yd - Deuce got injured. @Arizona L - Did Not Play Tampa Bay L -21 for 102- fumbled twice and one was run back or a TD. Minnesota 18 for 78yds Oakland W 24 for 42 - Averaged 1.8 yards on 24 carries San Diego L 17 for 43yds. Denver L 13 for 42yds. Carolina 7 for 22 Dallas W 30 for 83yds - Averaged 2.8 yards on 30 carries. Tampa Bay W 25 for 89yds - Averaged 3.5 yards on 25 carries. After that game Deuce got healthy and we went 4-1 during that stretch. The only loss during the last 5 games was to the Falcons. Brooks and the offense drove the length of the field for a TD leaving Vick under 2 minutes and they scored a TD at the end of the game to win.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

02-22-2005, 12:32 PM	#66
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Brooks turnovers. How does he stack up? I am only questioning whether the reason was a talent issue, or more an issue of fatigue and attitude. I certainly don\'t pretend to know which is the case, I just find it strange that the same personnel can look like two different teams from the first 12 games to the last 4. How quickly we forget just how ineffective Deuce was the first part of the season. Deuce game by game: Seattle L- 16 for 57yds - San Francisco W 3 for-1yd - Deuce got injured. @Arizona L - Did Not Play Tampa Bay L -21 for 102- fumbled twice and one was run back or a TD. Minnesota 18 for 78yds Oakland W 24 for 42 - Averaged 1.8 yards on 24 carries San Diego L 17 for 43yds. Denver L 13 for 42yds. Carolina 7 for 22 Dallas W 30 for 83yds - Averaged 2.8 yards on 30 carries. Tampa Bay W 25 for 89yds - Averaged 3.5 yards on 25 carries. After that game Deuce got healthy and we went 4-1 during that stretch. The only loss during the last 5 games was to the Falcons. Brooks and the offense drove the length of the field for a TD leaving Vick under 2 minutes and they scored a TD at the end of the game to win. So, by your own admission, it wasn\'t until the offense stepped up their game that the defense became better, unless I am reading this wrong.
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right!

02-23-2005, 11:55 PM	#67
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,773	Brooks turnovers. How does he stack up? SFIAH, this is funny. I pointed out to you TWO cases where Brooks directly led to our defense giving up more than 20 points, and you jump back on our defense. I wonder if you could look up the QB rating of those last 16 Superbowl teams and see if their QB led the league in A) lost fumbles or B) red zone turnovers. I asked before for you to qualify the numbers you found and seem to post often about us winning when the defense holds a team under 20 by finding out how many MORE games than what I pointed out AB was DIRECTLY responsible for it going over 20. SO then you divert the convo, I answer that, and you jump off on the defense tangent at first opportunity. So I will reinstate my initial request and the second request since you like throwing defensive numbers at us. A) Please tell me how many times AB led directly to the team giving up over 20 points in the record you pointed out(I already gave you two). B) Find out how many times in the last 16 Superbowls you pointed out the QB led the league in lost fumbles, or red zone turnovers. I know we have had a better running game the past few years than some Superbowl teams(Pats definitely except this year and the Bucs ), so find those stats please. Since your aim seemed to be to divert me from asking these kinds of questions, I will ask them again. [Edited on 22/2/2005 by saintswhodi] Whodi, That requires research on individual plays. I\'ve never seen a stat in the NFL of how turnovers leads directly to points, like in basketball. The only way to get a true measure is to swap the players and see what happens. But this isn\'t Madden. I know you think I\'m just trying to get Brooks off the hook. I\'m not. However scoring defense, in whatever form, is a clear indicator of playoff success. As an example take a look at the Giants last year. They were 5-1 not because of Warner, but because of the defense and the running game. When the defense was decimated, the team fell apart. The OP in this thread stated that Brooks has 18 TOs and Brady has 3 rings. Am I saying that Brooks is a better QB? No. Am I even saying that Brooks is a SB caliber QB? No. (I in fact stated that in my last post). All I\'m saying is that Brady is on a team with a better defense. And it\'s clear that you have to have defense to be successful, regardless of your QB. The Colts have shown that the last 2 years. And in parting I want to make sure that I grant you your point. Brooks and the offense does take some of the blame for the defensive play. They have too many turnovers, insufficient time of posession, and way to many stalled drives. This leads to the defense being on the field too much and in bad field position. But ask yourself in all honesty if we replace Brooks with another veteran QB would the defense we had the first 12 games of last year have been a top 15 defense? Does Brooks get so much of the blame of the defensive play that replacing him would have gotten the defensive scoring average down 6 points a game? That Brooks is personally responsible for giving up 80 to 100 points to the opposition? It\'s an open question. And no I\'m not going to take the time to analyze individual plays to determine the number of points Brooks personally gave up. But I feel reasonably sure it isn\'t 80 to 100. I point to the end of Minnesota game as an example. The offense scored on each of its last 3 drives. But so did Minnesota\'s. The defense had to only make 1 stop in the second half. They didn\'t. Brooks is also culpable in that game. He threw a red zone interception that led to a 60 yard runback. Then Culpepper threw a 43 yard TD to Moss on the resulting drive. Both units screwed up, not just Brooks who threw the INT, but the defense too who gave up the TD. The 1st Atlanta game was another example of blame distribution. We all could see that with 3 minutes left all the Saints offense had to do was make a 1st down and win the game. McCarthy runs Deuce into the line twice, then Brooks couldn\'t convert the 3rd down play (a dumpoff according to the play by play here: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playby...0041128_NO@ATL) The offense couldn\'t make one stinking first down. But the team is up by 4 and the Falcons were 50 yards away from the end zone. The defense only needed to make one stop to win the game. We all know what happened. So was that loss Brooks fault? Deuce\'s? McCarthy\'s? The defense? I know that you and I see it differently. In the above case I\'d put the majority of the blame on the defense. Bracket Crumpler and make Vick throw the ball to someone (anyone) else. But I have a suspicion that someone else may think that somehow the offense not making that first down is the reason that the 7 point were given up. My thesis is simple: Even with the 3 and outs, even with Brooks bonehead plays, even with Deuce\'s dropping YPC, even with no tight end production, even with the receiver drops, even with the penalties, and even with the turnovers, that if the defense had played like they did the last 4 games, the Saints would have had a successful 2004 season. When the defense played better, the team won plain and simple. I really do hear you when you say that Brooks\' play influences the performance of the defense. But you can\'t convince me that influence results in 5-6 PPG. And if the defense improved by 5-6 PPG, this team would be a force. SFIAH [Edited on 24/2/2005 by SaintFanInATLHELL]
	Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.

02-24-2005, 10:38 AM	#68
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Brooks turnovers. How does he stack up? Nice breakdown SF, but my point is this. We only needed ONE more win to make the playoffs. Not a 5-6 point swing in average given up, but one more game. Now I posted in another thread how our defense held teams to minimal points in the first quarter repeatedly, for an average through all games of 7.3 points given up in the first quarter. Know what our average scoring was for our offense in the first quarter? Less than 3 points. I even gave drive charts from two different games. In the Arizona game, the Saints DID NOT SCORE on 10 of 11 possessions. TEN OF ELEVEN?!?!?!?!?!? That is horrendous. Against winless Arizona? In the Seattle game, The defense gave them the ball 3 times in the first half and only had given up 14 points by the half. Know how many we had? 7 points. Two games where had the offense done ANYTHING we could have and should have won. But they didn\'t. I am not gonna place it all on Brooks, although a good bit of it should be since in the AZ game he had another red zone TO, this one in the first quarter. It\'s on the whole offense. McCarthy, Brooks, Deuce, the line. We can want a top 10 D all our life but we don\'t have the talent to be. WE DO have the talent to be DECENT, if not for an anemic more often than not offense. That was my point. So when you pointed out your numbers, I just wanted to know how much culpability was on Brooks AND the offense for giving up those points. You don\'t have to research it even though it would have been interesting to know since I know two specific instances this year alone. A better offense would have equaled a better defense, no doubt in my mind. But ti\'s all good. Also, to answer your question about another vet QB, I don\'t know. I think a good bit of the blame should fall on McCarthy and that stupid two tight end offense, which Deuce openly complained about before the season. They should have stuck to what they know. I do feel over the course of the season a vet QB who doesn\'t committ Brooks\' mistakes could have gotten us that one more win to make the playoffs though. I think we could have gotten that kind of difference. Look at the Minn game. The D held them to 7 points in the 1st quarter. Our O, ZERO POINTS. So while people want to balem the D for not holding them late, how about the O for not taking advantage of Minny\'s poor defense early? Brooks is also culpable in that game. He threw a red zone interception that led to a 60 yard runback. Then Culpepper threw a 43 yard TD to Moss on the resulting drive. Both units screwed up, not just Brooks who threw the INT, but the defense too who gave up the TD. I think this is where we mainly part ways though. Look how nonchalantly you are able to brush off another red zone turnover. If you are sitting on the sideline, and you watch your offense take advantage after you DID stop an opposing team, only yo see them give the ball up with no points AGAIN, how pumped are you gonna be to go back on the field? That red zone turnover takes 3 or 7 points off the board for our TEAM, and it would not have been the first time our D had seen that this season. They do not have the talent or drive to repeatedly cover these mistakes. Which is what is being asked of them and in my opinion, is WAY too much.