|
this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; [quote="saintswhodi"][quote="SaintFanInATLHELL"] Originally Posted by saintswhodi ... Snippage. You can read it in the thread above. SFIAH SFIAH, I know, I mean, I just know, you are not gonna dumb down this argument with the stats in a vacuum nonsense again. ...
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
07-03-2005, 04:45 PM | #21 |
The Professor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lithonia, GA
Posts: 2,776
|
[quote="saintswhodi"][quote="SaintFanInATLHELL"]
Originally Posted by saintswhodi
Brooks isn't as good as those guys. But he isn't trash either.
The point is that he is good enough right now to get this team where it needs to go. The issues that are on this team right now are in places where his contribution isn't significant. The point still stands that Brooks has numbers that are in the ballpark of Brady's. Manning has superior numbers to both of them. Yet Brady has all the rings. The question that keeps coming up is "What can we do about Brooks to make this team better?" I still contend it's the wrong question. You don't need to do anything to Brooks, warts and all, to make this team better. I really feel that folks complain about Brooks just to have something to complain about because this team isn't successful. It's a continuing discussion about "digust" and "dissapointment" due to Brooks' inability "to lead the Saints to the next level." The last time this team was in the playoffs they had a top 10 defense. They have had the most consistent and productive QB play in the history of the franchise since then. But yet they haven't gotten to the playoffs since. But out of poor defense and the QB, folks keep choosing the QB. It's borderline insane to me.
At the end of the day QB play is about wins and stats. Like baseball pitchers, the QBs get blamed for losses even when they don't get run support. But to call a guy who is 2-10 with a 1.71 ERA a bad pitcher because of his record without examining the stats isn't evaluating the situation. By the same token calling a pitcher with a 4.6 ERA and a 10-2 record a great pitcher isn't a good thing either. In both cases the record doesn't give a true indication of the productivity of the pitcher. It's the same with Brooks. The leadership, smarts, and intangibles arguments are a coverup for the fact that the guy posts consistent stats year after year and yet the team goes nowhere. So when talking about QBing the stats are important. And I'll continue to bring them to the table.
But Brooks is the poster boy for the offensive ineffiency. In virtually every post, he is the only one blamed. It's never "the offense is inconsistent." or the "offense needs to get better." It's Brooks specifically.
Championship NFL teams stop the other guys from scoring. All of the offenses that you named have never won the big game. And before you bring the 1999 Rams to the table, be aware that their defense was #4 in scoring defense that year.
SFIAH |
Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO
Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good. |
|
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 |
07-03-2005, 06:15 PM | #22 |
5000 POSTS! +
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
|
So your point this whole time has been, "Hey everyone, ignore the fact Brooks led the league in red zone turnovers(which takes points off the board), ignore the fact the D was top 10 in takeaways, ignore the fact the offense couldn't score in the first quarter, and most first halves, ignore the fact the new offensive system was a disaster, ignore the backwards pass, ignore the awesome TD to Mobley or whoever for the Broncs, ignore the INT in the second half of the Seattle game that gave them the ball inside their own 20 in a 14-7 game(by the way, the D created THREE turnovers first half of that game, we had 7 points), ignore all the three and outs, ignore the fact Brooks still fumbled double digit times, he just recovered far more than last year, ignore all the fumbles last year, ignore the fact he can't complete 60% of his passes, EVER, ignore the fact Dallas fans were glad they had Vinny and not Aaron when we played and BEAT Dallas, and Vinny was poo, Aaron for three quarters was worse, etc. etc." IGNORE ALL THAT, and say the defense is the main and only problem. Okay, good luck with that.
|
07-03-2005, 06:23 PM | #23 |
5000 POSTS! +
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
|
Oh, and I will also look at Brooks' and Brady's stats side by side for you.
Brady-Career completion %=61.6 Best year 63.9. WORST YEAR=60.2. Career passer rating= 87.5. Best year=92.6. WORST YEAR= 85.7. Brooks-Career completion %=56.5. Best year=59.1. WORST YEAR=53.6 Career passer rating=81.5. Best year= 88.8(plus 14 lost fumbles) WORST YEAR=76.4 So Tom Brady's WORST passing percentage year is better than Brooks' BEST. His WORST passer rating is almost the same as Brooks' BEST EVER. And until last year, Brady NEVER had a pro bowl RB, and/or a pro bowl receiver. Brooks has. Yeah, stack that side by side, and see who you would take. I know who I would. |
07-03-2005, 07:30 PM | #24 |
The Professor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lithonia, GA
Posts: 2,776
|
Originally Posted by saintswhodi
You only pick the two stats that's significantly different. Both have played for 5 seasons. Here's ALL the career totals:
Originally Posted by Career totals
Like I said I think you picked the one of the three stats with a disparity: wins and SB titles the others. Brooks has comparable TDs and Y/A even though his career comp %ages is 5 points lower than Brady's. He also has nearly 20 total TDs more in the same time frame.
I just can't believe that a 5 point differential in completion percentage is the only difference between the Pats winning 3 SBs in 4 years and the Saints having squat. Do you? Look to the defense Whodi. Look to the defense. SFIAH |
Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO
Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good. |
|
07-03-2005, 07:44 PM | #25 |
The Professor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lithonia, GA
Posts: 2,776
|
Originally Posted by saintswhodi
Nope. BTW exactly how many of those were there? Who was second? How many did they have?
What I'm saying is that even if the redzone turnovers were cut down to zero, that there would not have been a significant variation in the number of wins.
Because the stats show that regardless of offensive efficiency, that to be a Super Bowl caliber team you must have a top 10 defense, and must must must be able to stop the run. So yes, until the Saints' defense can consistently stop teams from running and scoring, ignoring Brooks is the best move because it's the wrong focus. What he brings to the table, warts and all, is sufficient. SFIAH |
Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO
Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good. |
|
07-03-2005, 10:06 PM | #26 |
5000 POSTS! +
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
|
|
07-03-2005, 11:03 PM | #27 |
Mmm That Smell!
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Metairie Terrace
Posts: 3,073
|
In the interest of brevity:
BROOKS RULES! BROOKS SUX! Two camps. And ne'er the twain shall meet. btw, BROOKS SUX! |
07-04-2005, 11:25 PM | #28 |
The Professor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lithonia, GA
Posts: 2,776
|
Originally Posted by saintswhodi
Sure. It's just as valid as the fact that you ignore the poor defense, inconsistent running game, sloppy offensive line, predictable play calling, the drive killing penalties and drops, and the complete inability of the defense to stop the run in any meaningful way.
Every discussion about Brooks with you whodi seems to be designed to put every onus of this team on one and only one guy: Brooks. You are convinced that the Saints will be a better team without him. But you may soon find out the difference that he in fact makes. When our offense looks like the Chicago Bears or the Washington Redskins. You keep complaining about a QB that led last years offense which was in the top half of the league in scoring, passing yards, and passing TDs. You keep saying the guy is a bad QB. 118 total TDs in 4.5 years isn't a bad QB. Flawed maybe. Needs improvement possibly. But just so flat bad that he must be gotten rid of any and all costs? You have to be kidding me!! The defense ranked in the bottom 5 in every meaningful category. And nothing, NOTHING, that you can say about Brooks can change that. SFIAH |
Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO
Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good. |
|
07-04-2005, 11:29 PM | #29 |
The Professor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lithonia, GA
Posts: 2,776
|
Originally Posted by saintswhodi
Why are they so important? What specifically about those two stats that leads to SB wins. Manning won both of those categories last year. The 2000 Ravens yearly numbers for those categories were worse than Brooks worst average.
So explain the correlation to me. SFIAH |
07-04-2005, 11:30 PM | #30 |
The Professor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lithonia, GA
Posts: 2,776
|
Originally Posted by RockyMountainSaint
Why does he SUX? Who would you replace him with that doesn't SUX?
SFIAH |