It's time for the Brooks/anti-Brooks debates again.

saintswhodi · 07-05-2005, 12:23 AM

The defense ranked in the bottom 5 in every meaningful category. And nothing, NOTHING, that you can say about Brooks can change that.

Top 10 in takeaways isn't a signifcant category? Okay, I give up. You win. I can't compete when facts are made up and blatantly omitted.

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!!

118 total Tds 86 total turnovers. EIGHTY-SIX. That's almost a one to one ratio. And that doesn't even count the fact he has fumbled FIFTY FIVE TIMES!!! That just takes into account the LOST fumbles. Do you think a QB who drops the ball and has to fall on it hampers a drive as much as a false start or dropped pass? That's still a loss of down, no?

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.

Yes I am. But that is a flat out non truth that I blame it ALL on Brooks. I have REPEATEDLY said our D was bad, and our OFFENSE was bad in general. Maybe you missed that the 100 or so times I said it. Maybe you also missed the title of this thread you started. It's about Brooks no? Why is it you can;t argue about AARON BROOKS without bringign up the D and receivers and line and any other excuse he has had for 5 years. Would it be that he just wouldn't cut the mustard, so it is necessary to hide his ineptitude by setting off flares elsewhere. It's a nice strategy, but )* has already pointed out Brooks' first half ratings, and the OFFENSE's TWENTY NINTH RANKED time of possession. Yeah, those helped the D.

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.

I guess you missed the fact Brady is consistently high in those numbers and his team has won 3 of the last 4 superbowls since he took over. Yeah, let's focus on Manning. Remember, Brady's LOWEST PASSER RATING EVER is almost equal to Brooks' highest ever, and his lowest completion % ever is higer than Brooks' HIGHEST EVER.

SaintFanInATLHELL · 07-06-2005, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

Yes. exactly. That's why the debate continues. The offense was in the top half of the league in most statisitical categories

Wasn't the offense 27th in rushing? Yes let's ignore that.

There's a reason that the word most was in the sentence.

Oh, the team didn't, they drafted Jamaal Brown first and not Derrick Johnson. I think they know what side of the ball could help the team the most. They went after Jermaine Mayberry ASAP in FA. Hhhhmmm....maybe they think running the ball and controlling the clock will give them a better chance to win. Imagine that. Offense on the field more, defense on the field less, yards the defense can allow goes down. BRILLIANT!!!

I certainly hope that the offense can become a consistent power-rushing, play action juggernaut.

As you ignore the fact that Brooks brought the offense back in the 4th quarter of multiple games. The fact that the offense scored the last time that they held the ball in the Minnesota game.

What multiple games? That's not true. Do you mean games where he sucked for 3 quarters and Joe Horn bailed him out in the 4th like Dallas and Tampa? Please tell me you don't mean those. His slow starts

There's that him specifically again. I presume that nothing and noone else contributed to the offense's slow starts. Right?

were half the reason we were behind. People were speculating he was throwing the first half of games so he could bring the team back. Guess you bought it. Do you seriously see a QB who hurts the team for 3 quarters but may get lucky cause he has a pro bowl receiver in the 4th as something that shouldn't be addressed?

Classic. Dump the blame on Brooks but put the heroics on someone else. WOW!

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.

We didn't need a significant variation in wins, we needed one more to make the playoffs. One.

So making the playoffs is your sole goal? You're satisfied with going in as a #6 WC seed and being unceremoniously dumped in the first week?

Getting to the playoffs is a somewhat meaningful step. Winning the last game of the playoffs is the goal. We don't have a team (see the word?) that is capable of winning that last game. And while Brooks is a part of that problem, he is neither the sole or primary reason for that.

Maybe if Brooks doesn't fumble on the one in Arizona, the team doesn't get down on themselves, and somehow we win,

Maybe if the defense holds Minnesota to a 3 and out in the last sequence of the 4th quarter, or if they actually put a player on Crumpler for the two consecutive catches in that Atlanta game, then maybe we go too.

That's woulda, coulda,shoulda. Every facet of this team had breakdowns last season. All of them contributed to the 8-8 and missing the playoffs.

and we are in the playoffs. I think you are missing how NOT putting points on the board can HURT a team. The object is to score more than the other team is it not? When you have a QB who CONSISTENTLY gives away those opportunities, well you do the math.

So everyone else on the offense, from Deuce, to Riley, to Boo, to McCarthy all graded at 105% and never made a mistake that contributed to the offense not being successful. The only difference in this offense scoring and not scoring was Brooks.

Right?

Whodi, we're not as far apart as you think. You arguments all seem one sided because the only person on the team that seems to be in your spotlight is Brooks. If you read your analysis they state unequivacalably (sp) that Brooks is the problem and getting rid of him is the solution.

You've gotten to the point where Brooks is the sole reason for the defense's problems.

"If Brooks hadn't fumbled on the 1 yard line, then the defense would have kept that old man from running roughshod over them!"

Every facet of this team had problems. Offense, defense, special teams, coaching, front office, and ownership. Hell even the water boys sucked

!

It's just that in your world Brooks get 92% percent of the blame for these problems and that if you subtract out that 92% blame, then the other 8% wouldn't have impacted the team.

I find that unrealistic.

I'm tired. I'll argue against the second half of this later.

SFIAH

BrooksMustGo · 07-06-2005, 01:09 AM

[quote="GoldenTomb
Brooks supporters are saying "He's the best we have so we just have to deal with him as our starter all season, so long as he doesn't get hurt."

That's a loser's mentality.[/quote]

The first part of that is one of the best single sentances I've ever seen on this board. Tomb has made a wonderful observation. Kudos to you brother!

I don't think I agree with the loser's mentality. But I would agree that it is a mentality driven by fear. The funny thing about being a Saints fan is that no matter how things are going, they can always go downhill in a hurry. Even as mediocre as AB is, people don't have to stretch too hard to remember Shuler or Weurrfel or any number of other crappy guys we've had under center. Maybe folks would rather not have to re-invent the wheel and risk another Shuler?

saintswhodi · 07-06-2005, 10:58 AM

SFIAH, we are going in circles pretty much, so I will address one point:

So making the playoffs is your sole goal? You're satisfied with going in as a #6 WC seed and being unceremoniously dumped in the first week?

Getting to the playoffs is a somewhat meaningful step. Winning the last game of the playoffs is the goal. We don't have a team (see the word?) that is capable of winning that last game.

Since I want us to make the playoffs as much as possible that's my sole goal? Or is it that since I know had we beaten just one of those winless teams we should have beaten, and several other losses we shouldn't have had, we would have been in the playoffs? What is it that gives you the impression this is my "sole goal"? Winning the superbowl is my goal for this team, how many NFC Champ games have we been to? Playoff appearances? Playoff wins? How many in the last 4 years? Ever hear the phrase you have to crawl before you can walk? I want us to become a consistent playoff team before I can realistically worry about anything beyond that. How many teams you know go from four years out of the playoffs, never having made it to an NFC champ game in their history, having one playoff win in their history, and win the superbowl or even make it there? The list is probably non-existent, so I should expect that? Uh-uh. I want us to learn how to be winners, and to expect and demand winning from every player that wears black and gold. I would like to see us just roll to a Superbowl, but how likely is that? So making the playoffs is not my "sole goal," but it is an attainable goal that I think sets us on the right path for long term success. But we could try that hardly ever make the playoffs then burst through one year with a Superbowl victory strategy. The first part has worked the last 38 years, just waiting on the second part. Crawl before you can walk.

trimolo · 07-06-2005, 11:13 AM

Here's the real deal...one person can't win a game...look at the Colts, peyton threw for a billion TD's and no AFC championship...it's teams and organizations that win and the Saints have horrible coaching, and an even worst front office, so let's put some of the blame there....then we can say Brooks sucks when he loses a game for or the many he potentially could lose for us.

4saintspirit · 07-06-2005, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by trimolo

Here's the real deal...one person can't win a game...look at the Colts, peyton threw for a billion TD's and no AFC championship...it's teams and organizations that win and the Saints have horrible coaching, and an even worst front office, so let's put some of the blame there....then we can say Brooks sucks when he loses a game for or the many he potentially could lose for us.

Everyone realizes that the team has numerous problems -- everyone realizes that the team loses not just AB -- Not everyone realizes that AB is an average QB with above average potential -- especially not him -- The reason why so many bash Mr Brooks is because of his attitude and the blind faithful on this forum who will never admit his numerous flaws. Many do not want to admit to the reality of intangibles - only want to mention statistics -- Intangibles are real -- they are the difference between a skilled QB and a good one -- Does AB have fantastic physical skills -- sure -- can he lead the team -- so far I haven't seen it -- can he read defenses -- so far I haven't seen it -- does he play with heart and passion -- rarely -- And after 4 years I expect to see marked improvement in all of those categories -- Personally I have not give up on him but I am not very optimistic he will ever become the QB he thinks he is

trimolo · 07-06-2005, 11:57 AM

I really want to see the Saints go after a proven X's and O's coach and a GM who knows football. Bring in some competition at al positions and draft like a champion on players who produce not on potention....AB needs to put up or shut up....and then Benson would get his DAYUM STADIUM

GoldenTomb · 07-06-2005, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by 4saintspirit

Originally Posted by trimolo

Here's the real deal...one person can't win a game...look at the Colts, peyton threw for a billion TD's and no AFC championship...it's teams and organizations that win and the Saints have horrible coaching, and an even worst front office, so let's put some of the blame there....then we can say Brooks sucks when he loses a game for or the many he potentially could lose for us.

Everyone realizes that the team has numerous problems -- everyone realizes that the team loses not just AB -- Not everyone realizes that AB is an average QB with above average potential -- especially not him -- The reason why so many bash Mr Brooks is because of his attitude and the blind faithful on this forum who will never admit his numerous flaws. Many do not want to admit to the reality of intangibles - only want to mention statistics -- Intangibles are real -- they are the difference between a skilled QB and a good one -- Does AB have fantastic physical skills -- sure -- can he lead the team -- so far I haven't seen it -- can he read defenses -- so far I haven't seen it -- does he play with heart and passion -- rarely -- And after 4 years I expect to see marked improvement in all of those categories -- Personally I have not give up on him but I am not very optimistic he will ever become the QB he thinks he is

I seem to make this same observation every time I talk about Brooks in a post. Most of the time it falls on deaf ears....people just don't want to hear it. Sometimes people will just say "He's our starting QB so we just have to deal with it". But you are totally right. This isn't Madden Football. In the real game, intangibles are more important than physical ability. Like the old Yogi Berra saying "90 percent of the game is half mental". He just seems like a simple sandlot QB who relies too much on his pure athleticism.

saintswhodi · 07-06-2005, 12:04 PM

I hear ya GT.

JKool · 07-06-2005, 02:14 PM

BMG,

I don't think it is a loser mentality, nor do I think it is simple fear.

Consider you know these facts:
Team A:
Your starting QB is 7 good (on some objective scale). Your first backup is a 7.5. You should switch.

Team B:
Your starting QB is 5 good. Your first back up is 2 good. You should trade for one of team A's QBs right away, or NEVER PLAY your backup.

Problem: in real life we don't have those numbers available to us.

Diagnosis: what we should do seems to depend on individual subjective assignments of how good each QB is, how good each option is, and so on.

Thus, I believe the "go with Brooks, because he is the best available" argument turns on TWO things - fear (or as I like to call it risk aversion - it doesn't sound so bad to those of us who are risk averse) and subjective assignment of "goodness". This second factor is very difficult to assess - it isn't plainly irrational to use (provided evidence is properly brought to bare) - but it is obvious that rational individuals can still differ once the evidence is in. As far as risk aversion goes, it seems the same - rational people can have different levels of risk aversion.

Final Analysis: judgement of the "Brooks is best available" is doubly open to subjective constraints. As long as people aren't too far apart on who might count as a reasonable replacement, should he become available, I think two rational people can stand on opposite sides of this argument.

07-05-2005, 12:23 AM	#31
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	The defense ranked in the bottom 5 in every meaningful category. And nothing, NOTHING, that you can say about Brooks can change that. Top 10 in takeaways isn't a signifcant category? Okay, I give up. You win. I can't compete when facts are made up and blatantly omitted. 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!! 118 total Tds 86 total turnovers. EIGHTY-SIX. That's almost a one to one ratio. And that doesn't even count the fact he has fumbled FIFTY FIVE TIMES!!! That just takes into account the LOST fumbles. Do you think a QB who drops the ball and has to fall on it hampers a drive as much as a false start or dropped pass? That's still a loss of down, no? 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. Yes I am. But that is a flat out non truth that I blame it ALL on Brooks. I have REPEATEDLY said our D was bad, and our OFFENSE was bad in general. Maybe you missed that the 100 or so times I said it. Maybe you also missed the title of this thread you started. It's about Brooks no? Why is it you can;t argue about AARON BROOKS without bringign up the D and receivers and line and any other excuse he has had for 5 years. Would it be that he just wouldn't cut the mustard, so it is necessary to hide his ineptitude by setting off flares elsewhere. It's a nice strategy, but )* has already pointed out Brooks' first half ratings, and the OFFENSE's TWENTY NINTH RANKED time of possession. Yeah, those helped the D. 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. I guess you missed the fact Brady is consistently high in those numbers and his team has won 3 of the last 4 superbowls since he took over. Yeah, let's focus on Manning. Remember, Brady's LOWEST PASSER RATING EVER is almost equal to Brooks' highest ever, and his lowest completion % ever is higer than Brooks' HIGHEST EVER.

07-06-2005, 12:31 AM	#32
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,776	Originally Posted by saintswhodi Yes. exactly. That's why the debate continues. The offense was in the top half of the league in most statisitical categories Wasn't the offense 27th in rushing? Yes let's ignore that. There's a reason that the word most was in the sentence. Oh, the team didn't, they drafted Jamaal Brown first and not Derrick Johnson. I think they know what side of the ball could help the team the most. They went after Jermaine Mayberry ASAP in FA. Hhhhmmm....maybe they think running the ball and controlling the clock will give them a better chance to win. Imagine that. Offense on the field more, defense on the field less, yards the defense can allow goes down. BRILLIANT!!! I certainly hope that the offense can become a consistent power-rushing, play action juggernaut. As you ignore the fact that Brooks brought the offense back in the 4th quarter of multiple games. The fact that the offense scored the last time that they held the ball in the Minnesota game. What multiple games? That's not true. Do you mean games where he sucked for 3 quarters and Joe Horn bailed him out in the 4th like Dallas and Tampa? Please tell me you don't mean those. His slow starts There's that him specifically again. I presume that nothing and noone else contributed to the offense's slow starts. Right? were half the reason we were behind. People were speculating he was throwing the first half of games so he could bring the team back. Guess you bought it. Do you seriously see a QB who hurts the team for 3 quarters but may get lucky cause he has a pro bowl receiver in the 4th as something that shouldn't be addressed? Classic. Dump the blame on Brooks but put the heroics on someone else. WOW! 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. We didn't need a significant variation in wins, we needed one more to make the playoffs. One. So making the playoffs is your sole goal? You're satisfied with going in as a #6 WC seed and being unceremoniously dumped in the first week? Getting to the playoffs is a somewhat meaningful step. Winning the last game of the playoffs is the goal. We don't have a team (see the word?) that is capable of winning that last game. And while Brooks is a part of that problem, he is neither the sole or primary reason for that. Maybe if Brooks doesn't fumble on the one in Arizona, the team doesn't get down on themselves, and somehow we win, Maybe if the defense holds Minnesota to a 3 and out in the last sequence of the 4th quarter, or if they actually put a player on Crumpler for the two consecutive catches in that Atlanta game, then maybe we go too. That's woulda, coulda,shoulda. Every facet of this team had breakdowns last season. All of them contributed to the 8-8 and missing the playoffs. and we are in the playoffs. I think you are missing how NOT putting points on the board can HURT a team. The object is to score more than the other team is it not? When you have a QB who CONSISTENTLY gives away those opportunities, well you do the math. So everyone else on the offense, from Deuce, to Riley, to Boo, to McCarthy all graded at 105% and never made a mistake that contributed to the offense not being successful. The only difference in this offense scoring and not scoring was Brooks. Right? Whodi, we're not as far apart as you think. You arguments all seem one sided because the only person on the team that seems to be in your spotlight is Brooks. If you read your analysis they state unequivacalably (sp) that Brooks is the problem and getting rid of him is the solution. You've gotten to the point where Brooks is the sole reason for the defense's problems. "If Brooks hadn't fumbled on the 1 yard line, then the defense would have kept that old man from running roughshod over them!" Every facet of this team had problems. Offense, defense, special teams, coaching, front office, and ownership. Hell even the water boys sucked ! It's just that in your world Brooks get 92% percent of the blame for these problems and that if you subtract out that 92% blame, then the other 8% wouldn't have impacted the team. I find that unrealistic. I'm tired. I'll argue against the second half of this later. 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.

07-06-2005, 01:09 AM	#33
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Re: It's time for the Brooks/anti-Brooks debates again. [quote="GoldenTomb Brooks supporters are saying "He's the best we have so we just have to deal with him as our starter all season, so long as he doesn't get hurt." That's a loser's mentality.[/quote] The first part of that is one of the best single sentances I've ever seen on this board. Tomb has made a wonderful observation. Kudos to you brother! I don't think I agree with the loser's mentality. But I would agree that it is a mentality driven by fear. The funny thing about being a Saints fan is that no matter how things are going, they can always go downhill in a hurry. Even as mediocre as AB is, people don't have to stretch too hard to remember Shuler or Weurrfel or any number of other crappy guys we've had under center. Maybe folks would rather not have to re-invent the wheel and risk another Shuler?

07-06-2005, 10:58 AM	#34
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	SFIAH, we are going in circles pretty much, so I will address one point: So making the playoffs is your sole goal? You're satisfied with going in as a #6 WC seed and being unceremoniously dumped in the first week? Getting to the playoffs is a somewhat meaningful step. Winning the last game of the playoffs is the goal. We don't have a team (see the word?) that is capable of winning that last game. Since I want us to make the playoffs as much as possible that's my sole goal? Or is it that since I know had we beaten just one of those winless teams we should have beaten, and several other losses we shouldn't have had, we would have been in the playoffs? What is it that gives you the impression this is my "sole goal"? Winning the superbowl is my goal for this team, how many NFC Champ games have we been to? Playoff appearances? Playoff wins? How many in the last 4 years? Ever hear the phrase you have to crawl before you can walk? I want us to become a consistent playoff team before I can realistically worry about anything beyond that. How many teams you know go from four years out of the playoffs, never having made it to an NFC champ game in their history, having one playoff win in their history, and win the superbowl or even make it there? The list is probably non-existent, so I should expect that? Uh-uh. I want us to learn how to be winners, and to expect and demand winning from every player that wears black and gold. I would like to see us just roll to a Superbowl, but how likely is that? So making the playoffs is not my "sole goal," but it is an attainable goal that I think sets us on the right path for long term success. But we could try that hardly ever make the playoffs then burst through one year with a Superbowl victory strategy. The first part has worked the last 38 years, just waiting on the second part. Crawl before you can walk.

07-06-2005, 11:40 AM	#36
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690	Originally Posted by trimolo Here's the real deal...one person can't win a game...look at the Colts, peyton threw for a billion TD's and no AFC championship...it's teams and organizations that win and the Saints have horrible coaching, and an even worst front office, so let's put some of the blame there....then we can say Brooks sucks when he loses a game for or the many he potentially could lose for us. Everyone realizes that the team has numerous problems -- everyone realizes that the team loses not just AB -- Not everyone realizes that AB is an average QB with above average potential -- especially not him -- The reason why so many bash Mr Brooks is because of his attitude and the blind faithful on this forum who will never admit his numerous flaws. Many do not want to admit to the reality of intangibles - only want to mention statistics -- Intangibles are real -- they are the difference between a skilled QB and a good one -- Does AB have fantastic physical skills -- sure -- can he lead the team -- so far I haven't seen it -- can he read defenses -- so far I haven't seen it -- does he play with heart and passion -- rarely -- And after 4 years I expect to see marked improvement in all of those categories -- Personally I have not give up on him but I am not very optimistic he will ever become the QB he thinks he is
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690

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

07-06-2005, 11:13 AM	#35
trimolo Rookie Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 16	Here's the real deal...one person can't win a game...look at the Colts, peyton threw for a billion TD's and no AFC championship...it's teams and organizations that win and the Saints have horrible coaching, and an even worst front office, so let's put some of the blame there....then we can say Brooks sucks when he loses a game for or the many he potentially could lose for us.

07-06-2005, 11:57 AM	#37
trimolo Rookie Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 16	I really want to see the Saints go after a proven X's and O's coach and a GM who knows football. Bring in some competition at al positions and draft like a champion on players who produce not on potention....AB needs to put up or shut up....and then Benson would get his DAYUM STADIUM

07-06-2005, 12:01 PM	#38
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591	Originally Posted by 4saintspirit Originally Posted by trimolo Here's the real deal...one person can't win a game...look at the Colts, peyton threw for a billion TD's and no AFC championship...it's teams and organizations that win and the Saints have horrible coaching, and an even worst front office, so let's put some of the blame there....then we can say Brooks sucks when he loses a game for or the many he potentially could lose for us. Everyone realizes that the team has numerous problems -- everyone realizes that the team loses not just AB -- Not everyone realizes that AB is an average QB with above average potential -- especially not him -- The reason why so many bash Mr Brooks is because of his attitude and the blind faithful on this forum who will never admit his numerous flaws. Many do not want to admit to the reality of intangibles - only want to mention statistics -- Intangibles are real -- they are the difference between a skilled QB and a good one -- Does AB have fantastic physical skills -- sure -- can he lead the team -- so far I haven't seen it -- can he read defenses -- so far I haven't seen it -- does he play with heart and passion -- rarely -- And after 4 years I expect to see marked improvement in all of those categories -- Personally I have not give up on him but I am not very optimistic he will ever become the QB he thinks he is I seem to make this same observation every time I talk about Brooks in a post. Most of the time it falls on deaf ears....people just don't want to hear it. Sometimes people will just say "He's our starting QB so we just have to deal with it". But you are totally right. This isn't Madden Football. In the real game, intangibles are more important than physical ability. Like the old Yogi Berra saying "90 percent of the game is half mental". He just seems like a simple sandlot QB who relies too much on his pure athleticism.
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591

07-06-2005, 12:04 PM	#39
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	I hear ya GT.

07-06-2005, 02:14 PM	#40
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	BMG, I don't think it is a loser mentality, nor do I think it is simple fear. Consider you know these facts: Team A: Your starting QB is 7 good (on some objective scale). Your first backup is a 7.5. You should switch. Team B: Your starting QB is 5 good. Your first back up is 2 good. You should trade for one of team A's QBs right away, or NEVER PLAY your backup. Problem: in real life we don't have those numbers available to us. Diagnosis: what we should do seems to depend on individual subjective assignments of how good each QB is, how good each option is, and so on. Thus, I believe the "go with Brooks, because he is the best available" argument turns on TWO things - fear (or as I like to call it risk aversion - it doesn't sound so bad to those of us who are risk averse) and subjective assignment of "goodness". This second factor is very difficult to assess - it isn't plainly irrational to use (provided evidence is properly brought to bare) - but it is obvious that rational individuals can still differ once the evidence is in. As far as risk aversion goes, it seems the same - rational people can have different levels of risk aversion. Final Analysis: judgement of the "Brooks is best available" is doubly open to subjective constraints. As long as people aren't too far apart on who might count as a reasonable replacement, should he become available, I think two rational people can stand on opposite sides of this argument.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks