Optimist vs Pessimist
 

35 years, 1 playoff win
I think the pessimists are kicking the crap outta the optimists.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

You know, I hate those terms. In this context, neither of them are worth squat.


For 4 years I\'ve heard how pessimistic I am about the Saints, and how I am so negative. Well if you look at what I\'ve suggested, I\'ve either been right, or I\'ve erred on the side of greater success - like last year, when the Saints underperformed compared to my expectations.

There is a difference between wanting the Saints to do better, and recognizing the reality of their chances. B/c I think their chances aren\'t great makes me less of a fan or a negative person? Even if when I say 8-8 or 9-7 and others say 13-3 and the Saints end up 8-8???


Things on this board get skewed due to emotional involvement all the time.

For example - there is a difference between saying that the Saints will never win anything with Brooks at QB b/c he sucks, and suggesting that an upgrade at the QB position is possible, worthwhile, and important.

Everyone on this board WANTS the Saints to win. But c\'mon - if you put the over/under on Saints wins this year at anything other than 8 (maybe 7 or 9), then you\'re just letting emotion come into play.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

I can\'t disagree with that, but I sure as hell can see that Brooks isn\'t the reason the over/under shouldn\'t be anything but 8. I continue to be amazed that, with our crappy running game, necessarilly weak offensive line, poor WR corp, and horrible defense, anyone could suggested a change at QB is what this team needs.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Hhhmm, offensive line, running game, and defense was better in 2003, and our QB led the league in lost fumbles. Some looked like he was untouched. What happened then? Somehow I am to believe if we had a QB that did not lead the league in lost fumbles in 2003, and did not lead the league in red zone turnovers this year, we would have been the same or worse? Wow. Have a nice time trying to sell that.

[Edited on 8/4/2005 by saintswhodi]

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Yeah and in 2003 Jake Delhomme had more turnovers than Aaron Brooks and the Panthers went to the super bowl.

So, it must not have been the turnovers that kept us from the playoffs, saintwhodi. Come on dude ... what\'s your explaination?!

And in 2002 we had the 2nd highest scoring offense in the NFC and missed the playoffs!! What\'s your explaination there, saintwhodi?

You don\'t want the truth do ya?

[Edited on 8/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Wow, you don\'t mention Jake, and you get a Jake convo. Nice. LEt me see if I can dig up a little something on Jake from the Superbowl year for ya Gumbo.

Passing
Carolina Att. Comp. Yds. TD Int.
Delhomme 33 16 323 3 0

HOLY CRAP!!! 3 Tds and no INTs against NE IN THE SUPERBOWL? Against the best team of this decade? Let me see what the Panthers defense did.

TEAM STATISTICS CAR NE
Total First Downs 17 29
Rushing 3 7
Passing 12 19
Penalty 2 3
Total Net Yardage 387 481
Total Offensive Plays 53 83
Avg. Gain per Offensive Play 7.3 5.8
Rushes 16 35
Yards Gained Rushing (Net) 92 127
Average Yards per Rush 5.8 3.6
Passes Attempted 33 48
Passes Completed 16 32
Had Intercepted 0 1
Tackled Attempting to Pass 2 0
Yards Lost Attempting to Pass 4 0
Yards Gained Passing (Net) 295 354

HOLY CRAP!!! They allowed 481 yards of offense to NE?? And they onlt lost by 3? Wow, I wonder who kept them in that SUPERBOWL??? LEt\'s look again.


Passing
Carolina Att. Comp. Yds. TD Int.
Delhomme 33 16 323 3 0

And wow, Carolina had 92 WHOLE YARDS rushing. Wow, so terrible defense and no running game IN THE SUPERBOWL, and who was their hero? Please don\'t bring any more Jake arguments to me.


This is the same argument you always make, so I am not gonna get too deep into it cause it serves no purpose. But to shoot this down:

Our beloved QB completed 53.6% of his passes in 2002. He had 15 INTs and 11 fumbles, 5 lost. So 20 turnovers to his 27 INTs. That is not even close to a 2 to 1 ratio. It is a 1.35 to one ratio. That\'s horrible. Our D was also NOT LAST in total D, not last in defense giving up points either. So surely, TWENTY TURNOVERS IN SIXTEEN GAMES may have played a teensy tiny part in not making the playoffs? Maybe? And our offensive line was not as bad then. So what\'s your excuse for us not making the playoffs?

[Edited on 8/4/2005 by saintswhodi]

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Brooks has finished 20th, 20th, 19th, and 8th in QB rating in four full years as a starter. Sure looks to me like he hovers around 20th or so - you know, right about at the bottom third of the league.

Is our defense a bigger problem? Yes. Show me one single guy who says that isn\'t the case. ONE.

What\'s funny to me is that you say:

The defense sucks
The offensive line sucks.
The running game is crappy.
Our WRs can\'t catch.

You\'ve just said that the New Orleans Saints have problems at 21 positions... the one you didn\'t criticize? The QB. And you say that I have an :censored: .

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

PEOPLE

PEOPLE

THE SAINTS DONT HAVE PROBLEMS

CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG???????


OK BROOKS IS A BIG PROBLEM 1.HE HAS 0 LEADERSHIP SKILLS AND 2.LIKE I SAY EVERY YEAR THIS AINT HIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR AINT LOOKING TO GOOD EITHER.

VENTURI IS A PROBLEM I SERIOUSLY DOUBT HE COULD COME UP WITH A SCHEME TO STOP THE DENHAM SPRINGS HS FOOTBALL TEAM MUCH LESS A MINOR COLLEGE OR JUCO

LOOMIS AND HASLETT AND OUR ENTIRE SCOUTING TEAM SUCKS BIG TIME CAN THEY JUDGE TALENT OR WHAT????

HMM WE RELEASE SAMMY AND SIGN TEBUCKY FOR A MILLION MORE THAN SAMMY WANTED?? HMMMM

ISNT SAMMY STILL ON A TEAM AND PRODUCTIVE???

SO AS YOU CAN SEE ITS NOT JUST BROOKS, ITS THE PEOPLE THAT KEEP TELING HIM HES A TOP 5 QB WHICH WE ALL KNOW IS BS

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

saintwhodi --

You are accusing me of making \"the same old arguement\"?

That\'s priceless coming from you :exclam:

In 2002 Brooks led the Saints offense to the 2nd most points in the NFC. I know you don\'t have an explaination for it, but deal with on your own terms.

And Jake Delhomme did indeed have more turnovers than Brooks when the Panthers went to the super bowl. I know you don\'t have an explaination for that either. Kinda shoots down your little theory on Brooks\' turnovers keeping us out of the playoffs. But, then again, facts mean very little to you. You still think Brooks \"locks\" on to Joe Horn when I clearly showed you otherwise. Those pesky facts again.



WhoDat --

You are facinated with QB Rating?

2003 - Jake Delhomme QB Rating - 80.6 - Super Bowl
2001 - Tom Brady QB Rating - 86.5 - Super Bowl
2003 - Tom Brady QB Rating - 85.9 - Super Bowl
2003 - Aaron Brooks QB Rating - 88.8 - wow that did get us there?

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Laughable at best. I gave two arguments that shot swiss cheese through everything you said, and I get zero facts or stats back. I get \"the offense was 2nd in the league in scoring\" yet you belittle the o-line at every turn and talk crap about Deuce in another thread, as if our QB was the reason for that ranking. Nice sell there. I am sure there are some immigrants who don\'t yet understand football you can sell that too. Explain Jake being FAR from terrible in the Superbowl, when his defense and running game were crap. Explain our QB completing 53.6% of his passes in a season, and having 20 turnovers in the year in question. You can\'t, so you bluster and flap your arms. Come out from behind the curtain wizard, we aren\'t in Oz any more. You are being exposed as a fraud.