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

I've seen the stirrings in the last few posts:

In short the usual yadda yadda.

So I'm going to fire off my usual shots early.

Only one person (so far) seems to have a real grasp of what's going on:

My sentiments exactly.

I am somewhat happy to note that we probably won't be having this discussion next year. Brooks' cap number will be so high that he'll either have to restructure his contract or be released. Brooks' ego is so over inflated he won't allow for a restructure or a pay cut. So I'm putting my money on him being gone after 2005. The only caveat would be if the team made an appearance in the NFC championship game. But it's unlikely.

But back to the point. The Saints last year ranked 32nd in total defense and 28th in defensive scoring.

With Brooks' at the helm in the last 4 years the team is 20-8 when the opposition is held to under 21 points. Note that this has occured in only 28 out of 64 games. Also note that it happened in each of the 4 games of the season ending winning streak.

But Whodat has it right. It's not about Brooks, or Deuce, or Horn, or the offense. Even if the offense were clicking on all cylinders, all we would be is the NFC equivalent of the Indianapolis Colts.

Does Brooks needs to get his completion percentage above 60%. Yes. Does he need to run more? Sure. Does he need to keep his big yap shut? Most Definitely! And I'm not even going to get into the boneheaded plays that everyone keeps bringing to the table.

But at the end of the season Brooks will play in all 16 games, bring 25+ TDs and 3500+ yards to the table. I'd like to see 65%, 30TDs, and 4000 yards personally which would all be personal bests for him. BTW I think each is attainable because of the acquisitions of Brown and Mayberry. This offense is going to be a pound the ball, throw over the top style offense. It will be very productive. Even more so than when under McCarthy.We have the offense and the QB capable of being successful in this league.

So if you think Brooks is the problem and getting rid of him is the solution (like having AMac start against Carolina?!) then you're focusing on the wrong problem area.

Here's my hypothsis: If the Saints' defense can improve their scoring average by 4 PPG and get it under 21 PPG then this 2005 Saints' team will go 12-4, win the South, win a playoff game, and be in the NFC championship. In short we'll be the (cough, cough HATED!) Falcons of last season.

And I make that prediction with Brooks doing nothing significantly different than he has done the last 4 years. Same guy. Same mistakes. Same attitude.

I have a 4 game win streak backing me up on that. In the last 4 games Brooks threw 4 INTs, was only over 60% once (against TB) and had up and down QB ratings. It wasn't anything that he changed that got the team winning all of a sudden.

Minnesota finally got this concept this offseason. They made drastic changes to their defense. I expect they will improve 3-4 games this season, take the North easily, and possibly take on the Saints in the divisional round.

I think the Saints got it in a limited fashion. MM made a huge difference down the stretch. Acquiring Smith and drafting Bullocks gives us a talented safety code. Fincher looks to be a workhorse and Colby has dedicated himself in the offseason. The major holes that seem to be left in the defense is tackle and inexperience. Also the scheme and its application is still unknown at this time. It bothers me greatly that the Saints never disclosed who changed the defensive scheme midseason and why. I know it's to protect Venturi. But I'd still like to see the reasoning out in the open.

I well know that at the end of the day I'll be considered a Brooks butt-kisser. I'm not. He's got his problems. And he compounds them by opening his trap and talking. His only two words to the media should be "No comment." Or maybe talk about his foundation. Or his wife. Or his dogs (does he have dogs?) Anything but football and his supposed greatness.

But the only discussion we should be having about the Saints is on the defensive side of the ball. That's why everyone was pissed when we picked Brown over Davis or Johnson with that 1st pick. We all know innately that the defense needs to get better. They made strides the last 4 games. But we all know that it was pretty much against inferior competition. Until this defense can hold a top 10 offense under 21 points, this Saints team will never make that true step up.

So let's have at it. I've done my blame assignment. Let's hear yours.

SFIAH

Wow, you did a pretty nice job of arguing against yourself. :wink: You know times are slow when members have to resort to arguing an old debate against themselves. lol

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

Last I checked it wasn't too bad these days being the Colts.

I think the problem most people have is that the talent is already there for the most part for the offense. Underachieving is almost worse than anything you can do in sports. It's almost like dogging it. The defensive talent was lacking last year and still is this year. When the D sucks, we more or less expect it. Everyone thats talented on the D is producing, if you really look at the lineup. Sully doesn't count because I don't think he's talented at all. I think picking him was a huge error in judgement.

When people look at the O though, we see a unit that should be doing a lot better than they are. Brooks is at the center of that. In a way, he epitomizes the struggles of the entire team. And don't show me the stats. Brooks is a great fantasy QB pick, but he's looked like crap on the field, and is one of the jokes of the league. It's like he has 9 lives though, and most fans are tired of giving him ONE MORE CHANCE.

RE: Re: It
 

Its easy to put the finger on one person. You actually have to watch the games and see that if a couple of people make catches they are suppose to make instead of dropping the ball, Brooks completions percentages go up. You can have all the talent on onside of the ball but when the other can't live up to anything, you're still going to lose. Ofeense can score 32 a game but when a D gives up 33... I mean here let me do the math for you... 32-33 you lose. Some seem to think damn if only Brooks scored one more TD we would have won... damn Brooks sucks. We had a lot of problems last year its not any ONE's fault but its EVERYONE's fault. O line stunck!!! D Sucked... we were horrible... "we didn't do diddley poo". How did they managed to finish 8-8 is a astonishing. So you go back to the drawing board and you revamp o-line and overhaul the D which they seem to be doing every year... now lets see what happens this year.

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

Actually it is. The objective every season for every team in the NFL is to win the Suber Bowl. The Colts cannot do that with the defense they have in place, no matter how efficient or great that offense is. You cannot win the SB without a top 10 defense. Period.

But it's a huge judgement error that has not been corrected. We are still weak at defensive tackle.

My point is that no matter how much the offense improves. a defense that is in the bottom third of the league will never have a successful team in terms of the ultimate goal.

As lothe as I am to bring it up again, just look at the Falcons as an example. It wasn't Vick coming back last year that made them successful. Their defense went from 32nd in the league in 2003 to 14th in 2004. They dropped the defensive scoring average by 5 PPG.

Tough defense wins games in this league. Tough defense wins championships.

All the offense has to do is be efficient. Now our offense has sturggled to do that at times. But presuming that Deuce is ready and that our new right offensive line comes to play, the offense will be more consistent this season.

But the defense is still an unknown.

SFIAH

Consider it a preemptive strike on the new debate. Just seeing the usual Brooks quotes coming across the wire and decided to discuss it.

I beleve that the reality of the situation is that this is Brooks' last season with the Saints. AMac is the insurace policy for that eventuality. If I were the coaching staff I would make the kid the #2 QB and put him in any game that is out of reach one way or the other, preferably with the Saints on the winning side.

SFIAH

I think you might have had something going, but missed the boat here. The Falcons team DID improve cause Vick returned, know why? Cause he made their offense better, and more efficient. With him, they led the league in rushing. What does rushing the football do? Eat the clock, and allows your D to rest. The team improving for the Falcons last year can be traced to Vick returning, directly. And he didn't lead the league in red zone turnovers, backwards passes to lineman, underhanded passes to defenders, INTs thatg ave the opposing team the ball in the red zone, or embarrassingly stupid quotes. I think that helped them a little too.

So basically there are going to be two sides to this debate...1. Brooks - 2. A Mac

Re: RE: Re: It
 

Definite co-sign on that on.

Like the Minnesota game last season. And the season before that for that matter.

Very much agreed here. But it has happened before. The 2002 KC Cheifs finished last in total defense yet had an 8-8 record.

Which the Saints have done. The only question mark is Gandy. I think that the Saints have to commit to Stinchcomb for 2006 or plan to draft a bookend to Jammal Brown in the 1st round of next year's draft.

The D is still a question mark. And frankly is comes down to the simple fact that we the fans are no longer sure who's actually running it anymore. They were terrible at the beginning of the year. Then late last season the scheme changed. Was it Venturi? Unlikely. Haslett. Probably. Did either admit it? Nope. Then they bring in this guy Robinson as a "Defensive Special Assistant". Is he the DC? Don't know. Is Haslett still going to make the defensive scheme calls? Don't know? Where does Venturi fit in all of this? No clue.

How can the defense have an identity when the coach for that defense cannot even be identified?

Will we be playing with two disgruntled corners? What will be the impact of that? Can this defense finally finally finally stop the run? It's essential. But who knows?

All I know is that the defense's magic scoring number had better be below 21 for the season. But I don't have a clue as to how they will make that happen.

SFIAH

Boy -- all sorts of debate fodder being slung on this thread -- well for what it is worth her is my 2 cents -- no quotes -- posts have been long enough

1) The A-Mac discussion is a moot point for now -- we are not even in pre-season so let's just face it -- A Brooks is our 2005 QB

2) Defense should be questioned first -- while I agree it doesn't mean there are not reasons to discuss the offense -- namely the fact that they can't score on an opening drive, that they rarely score in the first quarter, and by then the defense has been shoved around so much that when the offense does wake up we are in trouble. One could argue that had the defense been kept off of the field a little more early in the game they may have had better stats (one could but I will not)

3) Fact -- Brooks has not been consistent -- poor decision making, poor calls, and a poor completion record. Just as much fact is a poor offensive line, poor coaching decisions (Deuce losing his fullback for example), dropped passes. Fact - Brooks has to do a better job all around or he is gone after the 2005 season. No way we can afford current rates given his performance.

So what exactly is my point -- glad you asked -- all eyes will be on Brooks and his performance this year but he has no bearing on whether or not we make the playoffs -- Our defensive performance is the key -- they play well than even an inconsistent Brooks will get us to the playoffs -- they suck and even a good Brooks will not be enough --(A great Brooks maybe but that is asking for a lot.

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

See '99-'00 Rams.

If our O was firing on all cylinders we would have had an excellent chance to at least GET to the SB, with the abysmal state the NFC was in last year.

Are you guys gonna tell me that we wouldn't have pulled some of those lost games out last year had we scored on the first drive???

For those of you who have never actually played the game of football....scoring first has a psychological effect on the game. 3 and outs can change the complexion quickly. Obviously it's reflected in the stats.

I'm willing to say that the D has far more pressing issues than the O. That's why I think it's imperative that the O comes with it's "A" game to compensate for our weakness, which is the D.

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. The case SHOULD be that NO ONE is beyond reproach and no one is indispensable. I say if he struggles the first two or so games, yank him and put McPherson in. Is Brooks better....absolutely, but he shouldn't be untouchable because of that fact.

RE: Re: It
 

Hey, Jake Delhomme is better than Aaron Brooks. Did you guys know that?

Just ask BnB.

RE: Re: It
 

No I think what they as saying and I have to agree with is that Brooks right now is better than Amac so go with Brooks.

RE: Re: It
 

IF you don't know my opinion bye now you never will. DOn't you know how to bring something up that has not been beaten to death. the soda pop is saturated quick put some vodka in it next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i will say this for bout the hundredth time.........................DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!! END OF DISCUSSION. 20-8 when the D shows up? Go figure!!!!

I was going to comment but it seems FireVenturi has ended the discussion. :cry:


Oh, well....




8)

SaintFanInATLHELL

Let me know when your ready for some real Brooks Pain ......

Good work SFIAH. Sound argument and a nice pre-emptive strike. I also enjoyed your blame analysis - I tend to agree (but you knew that).

Of course, garnering agreement on a Brooks debate is impossible, but I did enjoy your work.

I guess, I don't agree that there is nothing to talk about regarding Brooks until the defense is fixed. It seems to me that several things can be fixed at once. Just because there is an order of need, it doesn't necessitate an order of correction. It seems to me quite possible to think that the Defense is the biggest problem but Brooks is the most pressing need.

Consider the following: The defense is so bad that adding 2-3 players will only make it average. Also, opposing teams will be able to neutralize the benefits of adding those 2-3 players by game planning and keying on their weaknesses. On the other hand, the only problem with the offense, stacked with pro-bowlers along the line, at WR, and at RB, is the fact that the QB would be a 3rd stringer on any other team. It seems to me that fixing the QB would make the team very dangerous on one side of the ball - and give the team a chance of winning a couple of games - whereas fixing the D, which makes sense given how awful they are in this fictional example, would lead to little to no improvement. At any rate, I'm sure you take the point.

Either way, I'm with you - Brooks is not the biggest problem, and some games (like the last four of last season you mention) he isn't a problem at all (even when he is up to his old tricks). A good point, I think.

I further agree that the A-Mac point is moot. He hasn't even taken a snap against another NFL team (not even their 3rd stringers). Let's wait before we get caught up in this hype... for a change.

I'm in perfect agreement with that. Atlanta was #1 in rushing the ball and #10 in stopping the run.

But now it's back to blame assignement. We didn't rush the ball well last year finishing 27th with 100 YPG. We finished 30th in stopping the run. Each of the final 4 teams last year with the exception of Philly was in the top 10 in both rushing and rushing defense.

My point is the Brooks is only a minimal contributor to those stats. Yet he continues to be the focal point, the poster child, of the Saints' not being able to take it to the next level. I find that curious.

I just keep questioning the IMHO mistaken belief that if Brooks somehow turned into Peyton Manning, that all of a sudden this team would win the SB or be ultra successful. It's not just the QB.

To illustrate I point you to two contemporary QBs: Brooks and Tom Brady. "No comparison!" most would scream. But take a look at their career stats:

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/BradTo00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/BrooAa00.htm

You'll find they are simply not that dissimilar other than the disparity in completion percentage.

But then go take a look at the defensive scoring ranks: 6,17,1,2 the last 4 years for NE and 26,27,14,27 for the Saints. In those 4 years the Saints have simply broken even while the Pats have won 3 SBs.

But of course it's all about the QBs.

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. 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.

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

[quote="saintswhodi"][quote="SaintFanInATLHELL"]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.
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.

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.
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.

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

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.

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.

You only pick the two stats that's significantly different. Both have played for 5 seasons. Here's ALL the 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

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.

And yet gave up nearly 26 points a game.


And yet that same offense was in most games despite the fact that they were virtually guaranteed to be down 20 points in the second half.


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.

Yes. exactly. That's why the debate continues. The offense was in the top half of the league in most statisitical categories, while the defense was in the bottom third for virtually every statistical category.

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

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

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 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?

We didn't need a significant variation in wins, we needed one more to make the playoffs. One. Maybe if Brooks doesn't fumble on the one in Arizona, the team doesn't get down on themselves, and somehow we win, 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.

Again, not true. Why do you think the offense had as many opportunities as they did? Do you think a D that is top 10 in takeaways helped that? We were never guaranteed to be down by 20 points, what we were guaranteed is that the offense would nto score in the 1st quarter, and possibly the half, while also going three and out. Yes, I can see how that helps the defense.

No I picked the two stats that are most important for a QB, passer rating and completion percentage.

He also had a pro bowl receiver and RB, unlike Brady. Think Brady would have more TDs with Joe HOrn and Deuce his whole career?

Nope, not the only difference, but one of the main ones. There is more than one way to fix a team. Don't pop firecrackers to distract people from the fact you are stealing their car. The offense AND Brooks was just as big a problem as the D last year. But I don't have to prove that to you, the team already did with the first round draft choice and the first free agent we got. LEt's not forget TE Shad Meier, WR Az Hakim, RB Antowain Smith, and I think we see what the people who get paid to do this saw as a priority. But by all means, continue to divert people's attention. The TEAM has shown us where they think the problem is.

In the interest of brevity:

BROOKS RULES!

BROOKS SUX!

Two camps.
And ne'er the twain shall meet.

btw, BROOKS SUX!

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

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

Why does he SUX? Who would you replace him with that doesn't SUX?

SFIAH

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 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?

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.

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.

There's a reason that the word most was in the sentence.
I certainly hope that the offense can become a consistent power-rushing, play action juggernaut.
There's that him specifically again. I presume that nothing and noone else contributed to the offense's slow starts. Right?Classic. Dump the blame on Brooks but put the heroics on someone else. WOW!
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 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.

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 :D!

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

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?

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

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.

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 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

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.

I hear ya GT.

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.