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

saintswhodi · 07-04-2005, 11:23 PM

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.

07-04-2005, 11:23 PM	#28
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.