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

SaintFanInATLHELL · 07-03-2005, 03:45 PM

[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. You are a smart guy, and make good arguments, but when you fall in line with the stas in a vacuum argument you are as bad as Billy was with his Brooks is as good as Elway and Peyton Manning garbage.

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.

IF NFL history has shown anything, stats are not the end all when judging QBs, and you know that, so I have no idea why you would try to take that tact. I will bet my remaining paychecks for the rest of the year you could not find one NFL player, exec, scout, owner, coach(outside of one of these each on the Saints team) that would say Brooks is a more cerebral QB than Brady, or has more "it" than Brady, or has the intangibles every coach wants out of their QB. These are factors outside of simply STATS that are analyzed. You argument was better than that, don't fall into the stats in a vacuum trap. That's a losing argument every time.

All intagibles. Bring every QBs stats for the last 4 seasons into them and offer them blind and ask them to pick QBs based on it. Brooks would be in the top 5 every time.

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.

And on the Falcons, here's where you again lose that argument. Were the Falcons able to score in the first quarter? First half? Were they able to sustain drives that kept their D off the field, thus lowering an opposing team's ability to rack up yards on their D, and not forcing themsevles to have to throw the whole second half? Yup. Were we? Not even close. Our rushign numbers were so low caus eoutside of Deuce's injury, we did NOTHING in the first half of what, 12 staright games? 13? We couldn't even run in the second half cause our offense gave us nothing in the first, kept the D on the field with three and outs and horrible turnovers, and we had to play catch up. IF we fielded a decent offense to start games, I guarantee our defense would have looked better. They may have been 28 in yard sinstead of 32, but that difference might have been enough to get them in the playoffs.

That's the offense. Not Brooks personally. Personally Brooks gets the fumble in the Arizona game. But the entire offense including penalties by Riley and Boo, Deuce's fumbles, receiver drops, and flat bad playcalling all contributed to the effect. I can even buy an argument of "...if the OFFENSE was more consistent."

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.

Look at the Rams defense. The Colts. Would you prefer to never make the playoffs, or have Peyton Manning at least giving you a CHANCE to go somewhere every year?

No I would prefer to have a defense that is in the top 10 so that we have a team that has a chance to win it all.

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.

Whethe rhe has won anythng or not, i'll take Peyton and a chance over Brooks and no shot any day.

You're still missing the point. Without a decent defense it doesn't matter if you have Brady, Manning, Vick, McNabb, or Brooks. No defense = No championship plain and simple.

SFIAH

07-03-2005, 03:45 PM	#18
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,781	[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. You are a smart guy, and make good arguments, but when you fall in line with the stas in a vacuum argument you are as bad as Billy was with his Brooks is as good as Elway and Peyton Manning garbage. 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. IF NFL history has shown anything, stats are not the end all when judging QBs, and you know that, so I have no idea why you would try to take that tact. I will bet my remaining paychecks for the rest of the year you could not find one NFL player, exec, scout, owner, coach(outside of one of these each on the Saints team) that would say Brooks is a more cerebral QB than Brady, or has more "it" than Brady, or has the intangibles every coach wants out of their QB. These are factors outside of simply STATS that are analyzed. You argument was better than that, don't fall into the stats in a vacuum trap. That's a losing argument every time. All intagibles. Bring every QBs stats for the last 4 seasons into them and offer them blind and ask them to pick QBs based on it. Brooks would be in the top 5 every time. 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. And on the Falcons, here's where you again lose that argument. Were the Falcons able to score in the first quarter? First half? Were they able to sustain drives that kept their D off the field, thus lowering an opposing team's ability to rack up yards on their D, and not forcing themsevles to have to throw the whole second half? Yup. Were we? Not even close. Our rushign numbers were so low caus eoutside of Deuce's injury, we did NOTHING in the first half of what, 12 staright games? 13? We couldn't even run in the second half cause our offense gave us nothing in the first, kept the D on the field with three and outs and horrible turnovers, and we had to play catch up. IF we fielded a decent offense to start games, I guarantee our defense would have looked better. They may have been 28 in yard sinstead of 32, but that difference might have been enough to get them in the playoffs. That's the offense. Not Brooks personally. Personally Brooks gets the fumble in the Arizona game. But the entire offense including penalties by Riley and Boo, Deuce's fumbles, receiver drops, and flat bad playcalling all contributed to the effect. I can even buy an argument of "...if the OFFENSE was more consistent." 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. Look at the Rams defense. The Colts. Would you prefer to never make the playoffs, or have Peyton Manning at least giving you a CHANCE to go somewhere every year? No I would prefer to have a defense that is in the top 10 so that we have a team that has a chance to win it all. 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. Whethe rhe has won anythng or not, i'll take Peyton and a chance over Brooks and no shot any day. You're still missing the point. Without a decent defense it doesn't matter if you have Brady, Manning, Vick, McNabb, or Brooks. No defense = No championship plain and simple. 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.