Prisco: Will the next star QB please stand up?(AB included)

saintswhodi · 06-02-2005, 10:08 AM

Insider: Will the next star QB please stand up?
June 1, 2005
By Pete Prisco
CBS SportsLine.com Senior Writer
Tell Pete your opinion!

At this time of the year, we're always looking for the NFL team that might be ready to make the big leap, perhaps even that Super leap.

In studying potential candidates, the focus almost always moves to the quarterback. As we have said in this space for the past four years, a good one can cure a lot of ills. Without one, you're in trouble.

There have been exceptions, but those teams (see the 2002 Baltimore Ravens) had to play extraordinary defense.

The 2004 playoffs were proof of the value of having a good quarterback. The final eight teams included a who's-who of quarterbacks, New England's Tom Brady, Indianapolis' Peyton Manning, Atlanta's Michael Vick and Philadelphia's Donovan McNabb among them.

If you have issues at quarterback, postseason play is almost always a fantasy. With that in mind, we thought it a good time to take a look at five quarterbacks who must take a big step forward for their teams to have a Super chance in 2005.

The five: Aaron Brooks of the Saints, Kyle Boller of the Ravens, Byron Leftwich of the Jaguars, David Carr of the Texans and J.P. Losman of the Bills.

Every pass they throw this offseason is being scrutinized, coaches and teammates gauging how far they have come and how much work they have left to do. When training camp opens in July, fans and the media will jump in line, too -- their assessments probably a lot more biting.

The quarterback who makes the biggest leap just might get his team -- all non-playoff teams from last season -- deep into the postseason.

Those who falter could put heat on their coaching staffs and open up the chance there could be a quarterback controversy, whether it involves a capable backup or fans' outcry about blowing a high first-round draft pick.

Good passers are vital to Super Bowl success. Do these five have what it takes for that to be reality?

Check back in December. By then, we'll have our answers.

Aaron Brooks, Saints
Brooks is considered one of the most inconsistent quarterbacks in the game. He can look brilliant at times but lost at others. He can make a laser throw off his back foot for a 60-yard touchdown, then throw into four guys for an interception.

That inconsistency drives the Saints nuts. Brooks also plays with a loose attitude, projecting the demeanor that he isn't holding himself as accountable as he should for his problems. He shrugs off the interceptions instead of showing the hurt.There was a time late last season when coach Jim Haslett actually threatened Brooks with the idea he would be replaced by Todd Bouman. Brooks responded with a nice finish, and the Saints won their final four games.

Now Saints coaches are raving about Brooks this offseason. They say he is stronger in the weight room and seems more focused on bringing the offense together, perhaps a sign that this is his breakout season.

"Aaron's having a heck of an offseason," Haslett said. "He's had a positive impact on our offensive players so far. He seems ready to take a big step forward."

The Saints have changed offensive coordinators, with Mike McCarthy now in San Francisco and Mike Sheppard being promoted from quarterbacks coach. The team also changed the offensive terminology, cutting down on the verbiage. Haslett said this should make it easier for the offense to get in and out of the huddle.

Brooks threw for 3,810 yards last season, with 21 touchdown passes. But the completion percentage of 57 percent isn't good enough, and he threw 16 interceptions. His passer rating was 79.5, which is way too low.

If the Saints can carry over their 2004 finish, they have a chance to be a playoff team and a division winner. But Brooks has to get his completion percentage up to 60 percent and his passer rating into the 90s.

The talent is there. And the focus seems to be there, too. Now it's a matter of Brooks putting it all together, which could finally get the legions of Brooks bashers in New Orleans off his back.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8524129/2

Only probelm I have with this article is:

There was a time late last season when coach Jim Haslett actually threatened Brooks with the idea he would be replaced by Todd Bouman. Brooks responded with a nice finish, and the Saints won their final four games.

This is false as Brooks had very little to do with us winning the final FOUR games. His only good game was the last one against Carolina, but he played so well I guess that could be counted as a rebound. Hope that carries over. He gets a chance to repeat the effort right out the gate.

Euphoria · 06-02-2005, 10:39 AM

Now now, see when they lose its Brooks fault. If they win no one gives Brooks credit... so its lose lose for Brooks?

saintswhodi · 06-02-2005, 10:44 AM

Hard to give credit to a guy who posts a 60 something passer rating in 11 out of 16 quarters in those 4 wins. But in case you missed it:

His only good game was the last one against Carolina, but he played so well I guess that could be counted as a rebound. Hope that carries over. He gets a chance to repeat the effort right out the gate.

I gave him credit for the time he played WELL and we won. No QB should get credit for just being there and the team wins.

papz · 06-02-2005, 11:11 AM

As long as he does not committ turnovers, then he played well. It's the same case for Trent Dilfer when the Ravens won the Superbowl, he managed the offense very well and didn't not put his team into bad situations. I would love to see Brooks manage the offense well and put up great numbers, but if I had to choose btw the two... I would rather see him manage the offense effectively and let our running game set us up.

4saintspirit · 06-02-2005, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by papz

As long as he does not committ turnovers, then he played well. It's the same case for Trent Dilfer when the Ravens won the Superbowl, he managed the offense very well and didn't not put his team into bad situations. I would love to see Brooks manage the offense well and put up great numbers, but if I had to choose btw the two... I would rather see him manage the offense effectively and let our running game set us up.

Comparing him to Trent Dilfer is horrible -- Had Dilfer been on our team the last couple of years his demotion to a back-up would have happened way before any winning seasons = AB is a much better QB than him -- That said look at our scoring on the first drive -- then the 1st quarter -- then the 1st half -- you will find an alarming trend that AB does not show up in the early parts of the game -- overall he gives the appearance of managing the team -- but the fact is that he only seems to play well
in the later stages -- Don't get me wrong -- I want AB to succeed and become the QB his athletic talent can allow him to be -- but he has not shown the leadership we really need from him. Now according to the offseason comments he seems to be finally taking ownership and is progressing marvelously -- hopefully this true and not Haslett trying to pump up AB or the fans.

As for the original post article -- I agree with the analysis -- in order for us to make the playoffs AB has to step up and become a lot more consistent

papz · 06-02-2005, 11:59 AM

Hmm... if I'm not mistaken, he was a backup for the last couple of years. I was referring to the year that he was a starter and won the Superbowl playing small ball and letting their running game (Raven's strength) take care of the job (basically THE STYLE OF PLAY). I don't think anywhere did I compare their physical attributes or talent level. If you don't think by having Brooks to manage the offense better... less turnovers and stupid passes (which was also what Dilfer did that SUPERBOWL year) is horrible... nevermind I don't think you understood what I said.

Anyways, the offense is being simplified therefore I expect him to be more efficient and consistent. It sounds like everyone is on the same page and not confused about what's being called from what has been said. I fully expect Brooks to have better numbers than Dilfer has ever put up because he certainly has much more talent.

WhoDat · 06-02-2005, 03:03 PM

Well Brooks better step it up. 4 years of inconsistency, 4 years of calling himself great, 4 years without a playoff appearance, one PB as an alternate after other QBs backed out, and a large cap number next year. Time is running out fast.

Tobias-Reiper · 06-02-2005, 05:13 PM

.. I am still trying to comprehend why Prisco bunched these 5 in the article..
... JP Lossman has yet to play a regular season game...
... Leftwich has 1 year as a starter..
... Boller has 2 years...
... Carr has 3 years...

... better subjects would've been Culpepper, Hasselbeck, Pennington, Plummer,...

saintswhodi · 06-02-2005, 05:28 PM

[quote... better subjects would've been Culpepper, Hasselbeck, Pennington, Plummer,...[/quote]

Which one of those guys wouldn't you take over AB? I think that's why they weren't in there. He was focused on QBs who need to prove themselves this year. None of those other guys you mentioned are in danger of losing their jobs.

Tobias-Reiper · 06-02-2005, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

[quote... better subjects would've been Culpepper, Hasselbeck, Pennington, Plummer,...

Which one of those guys wouldn't you take over AB? I think that's why they weren't in there. He was focused on QBs who need to prove themselves this year. None of those other guys you mentioned are in danger of losing their jobs.[/quote]

Well, you would think that they aren't, would you?

.. and I wouldn't take Plummer over Brooks

..but seriously, what I was trying to say, is that those guys I mentioned are in the 5-7 year starter range, whereas the QBs mentioned in Prisco's article really don't have that much experience yet.
David Carr is in no danger of losing his job. He's a 3 year starter on an expansion team...
Lossman hasn't even thrown a pass in a regular season game...

.. what I tried to say and I didn't explain properly, is that there has to be much higher expectations and, in turn, scrutiny, for those QBs I mentioned since they heve been starters for longer in teams with above .500 records and playoff appearances the past couple of years..

06-02-2005, 10:08 AM	#1
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Prisco: Will the next star QB please stand up?(AB included) Insider: Will the next star QB please stand up? June 1, 2005 By Pete Prisco CBS SportsLine.com Senior Writer Tell Pete your opinion! At this time of the year, we're always looking for the NFL team that might be ready to make the big leap, perhaps even that Super leap. In studying potential candidates, the focus almost always moves to the quarterback. As we have said in this space for the past four years, a good one can cure a lot of ills. Without one, you're in trouble. There have been exceptions, but those teams (see the 2002 Baltimore Ravens) had to play extraordinary defense. The 2004 playoffs were proof of the value of having a good quarterback. The final eight teams included a who's-who of quarterbacks, New England's Tom Brady, Indianapolis' Peyton Manning, Atlanta's Michael Vick and Philadelphia's Donovan McNabb among them. If you have issues at quarterback, postseason play is almost always a fantasy. With that in mind, we thought it a good time to take a look at five quarterbacks who must take a big step forward for their teams to have a Super chance in 2005. The five: Aaron Brooks of the Saints, Kyle Boller of the Ravens, Byron Leftwich of the Jaguars, David Carr of the Texans and J.P. Losman of the Bills. Every pass they throw this offseason is being scrutinized, coaches and teammates gauging how far they have come and how much work they have left to do. When training camp opens in July, fans and the media will jump in line, too -- their assessments probably a lot more biting. The quarterback who makes the biggest leap just might get his team -- all non-playoff teams from last season -- deep into the postseason. Those who falter could put heat on their coaching staffs and open up the chance there could be a quarterback controversy, whether it involves a capable backup or fans' outcry about blowing a high first-round draft pick. Good passers are vital to Super Bowl success. Do these five have what it takes for that to be reality? Check back in December. By then, we'll have our answers. Aaron Brooks, Saints Brooks is considered one of the most inconsistent quarterbacks in the game. He can look brilliant at times but lost at others. He can make a laser throw off his back foot for a 60-yard touchdown, then throw into four guys for an interception. That inconsistency drives the Saints nuts. Brooks also plays with a loose attitude, projecting the demeanor that he isn't holding himself as accountable as he should for his problems. He shrugs off the interceptions instead of showing the hurt.There was a time late last season when coach Jim Haslett actually threatened Brooks with the idea he would be replaced by Todd Bouman. Brooks responded with a nice finish, and the Saints won their final four games. Now Saints coaches are raving about Brooks this offseason. They say he is stronger in the weight room and seems more focused on bringing the offense together, perhaps a sign that this is his breakout season. "Aaron's having a heck of an offseason," Haslett said. "He's had a positive impact on our offensive players so far. He seems ready to take a big step forward." The Saints have changed offensive coordinators, with Mike McCarthy now in San Francisco and Mike Sheppard being promoted from quarterbacks coach. The team also changed the offensive terminology, cutting down on the verbiage. Haslett said this should make it easier for the offense to get in and out of the huddle. Brooks threw for 3,810 yards last season, with 21 touchdown passes. But the completion percentage of 57 percent isn't good enough, and he threw 16 interceptions. His passer rating was 79.5, which is way too low. If the Saints can carry over their 2004 finish, they have a chance to be a playoff team and a division winner. But Brooks has to get his completion percentage up to 60 percent and his passer rating into the 90s. The talent is there. And the focus seems to be there, too. Now it's a matter of Brooks putting it all together, which could finally get the legions of Brooks bashers in New Orleans off his back. http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8524129/2 Only probelm I have with this article is: There was a time late last season when coach Jim Haslett actually threatened Brooks with the idea he would be replaced by Todd Bouman. Brooks responded with a nice finish, and the Saints won their final four games. This is false as Brooks had very little to do with us winning the final FOUR games. His only good game was the last one against Carolina, but he played so well I guess that could be counted as a rebound. Hope that carries over. He gets a chance to repeat the effort right out the gate.

06-02-2005, 10:39 AM	#2
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	RE: Prisco: Will the next star QB please stand up?(AB includ Now now, see when they lose its Brooks fault. If they win no one gives Brooks credit... so its lose lose for Brooks?

06-02-2005, 10:44 AM	#3
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Hard to give credit to a guy who posts a 60 something passer rating in 11 out of 16 quarters in those 4 wins. But in case you missed it: His only good game was the last one against Carolina, but he played so well I guess that could be counted as a rebound. Hope that carries over. He gets a chance to repeat the effort right out the gate. I gave him credit for the time he played WELL and we won. No QB should get credit for just being there and the team wins.

06-02-2005, 11:24 AM	#5
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690	Originally Posted by papz As long as he does not committ turnovers, then he played well. It's the same case for Trent Dilfer when the Ravens won the Superbowl, he managed the offense very well and didn't not put his team into bad situations. I would love to see Brooks manage the offense well and put up great numbers, but if I had to choose btw the two... I would rather see him manage the offense effectively and let our running game set us up. Comparing him to Trent Dilfer is horrible -- Had Dilfer been on our team the last couple of years his demotion to a back-up would have happened way before any winning seasons = AB is a much better QB than him -- That said look at our scoring on the first drive -- then the 1st quarter -- then the 1st half -- you will find an alarming trend that AB does not show up in the early parts of the game -- overall he gives the appearance of managing the team -- but the fact is that he only seems to play well in the later stages -- Don't get me wrong -- I want AB to succeed and become the QB his athletic talent can allow him to be -- but he has not shown the leadership we really need from him. Now according to the offseason comments he seems to be finally taking ownership and is progressing marvelously -- hopefully this true and not Haslett trying to pump up AB or the fans. As for the original post article -- I agree with the analysis -- in order for us to make the playoffs AB has to step up and become a lot more consistent
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690

06-02-2005, 03:03 PM	#7
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Well Brooks better step it up. 4 years of inconsistency, 4 years of calling himself great, 4 years without a playoff appearance, one PB as an alternate after other QBs backed out, and a large cap number next year. Time is running out fast.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

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

06-02-2005, 11:11 AM	#4
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,744	As long as he does not committ turnovers, then he played well. It's the same case for Trent Dilfer when the Ravens won the Superbowl, he managed the offense very well and didn't not put his team into bad situations. I would love to see Brooks manage the offense well and put up great numbers, but if I had to choose btw the two... I would rather see him manage the offense effectively and let our running game set us up.

06-02-2005, 11:59 AM	#6
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,744	Hmm... if I'm not mistaken, he was a backup for the last couple of years. I was referring to the year that he was a starter and won the Superbowl playing small ball and letting their running game (Raven's strength) take care of the job (basically THE STYLE OF PLAY). I don't think anywhere did I compare their physical attributes or talent level. If you don't think by having Brooks to manage the offense better... less turnovers and stupid passes (which was also what Dilfer did that SUPERBOWL year) is horrible... nevermind I don't think you understood what I said. Anyways, the offense is being simplified therefore I expect him to be more efficient and consistent. It sounds like everyone is on the same page and not confused about what's being called from what has been said. I fully expect Brooks to have better numbers than Dilfer has ever put up because he certainly has much more talent.

06-02-2005, 05:13 PM	#8
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	.. I am still trying to comprehend why Prisco bunched these 5 in the article.. ... JP Lossman has yet to play a regular season game... ... Leftwich has 1 year as a starter.. ... Boller has 2 years... ... Carr has 3 years... ... better subjects would've been Culpepper, Hasselbeck, Pennington, Plummer,...

06-02-2005, 05:28 PM	#9
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	[quote... better subjects would've been Culpepper, Hasselbeck, Pennington, Plummer,...[/quote] Which one of those guys wouldn't you take over AB? I think that's why they weren't in there. He was focused on QBs who need to prove themselves this year. None of those other guys you mentioned are in danger of losing their jobs.

06-02-2005, 09:16 PM	#10
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Originally Posted by saintswhodi [quote... better subjects would've been Culpepper, Hasselbeck, Pennington, Plummer,... Which one of those guys wouldn't you take over AB? I think that's why they weren't in there. He was focused on QBs who need to prove themselves this year. None of those other guys you mentioned are in danger of losing their jobs.[/quote] Well, you would think that they aren't, would you? .. and I wouldn't take Plummer over Brooks ..but seriously, what I was trying to say, is that those guys I mentioned are in the 5-7 year starter range, whereas the QBs mentioned in Prisco's article really don't have that much experience yet. David Carr is in no danger of losing his job. He's a 3 year starter on an expansion team... Lossman hasn't even thrown a pass in a regular season game... .. what I tried to say and I didn't explain properly, is that there has to be much higher expectations and, in turn, scrutiny, for those QBs I mentioned since they heve been starters for longer in teams with above .500 records and playoff appearances the past couple of years..