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

SaintFanInATLHELL · 07-01-2005, 12:09 PM

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

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

I am done with Brooks. Trade him for some live bait or something.

Originally Posted by papz

No one questions Brooks physical attributes, he's extremely gifted. Everyone is just disgusted that he hasn't put it all together and taken this team to the next level.

Originally Posted by Gil Brandt

Brooks need to improve on his 2004 numbers when his quarterback rating of 79.5 (ranked 19th in the league).

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:

Originally Posted by whodat

How ridiculous is it that this "analysis" talked all about our offense and then said, PS, their defense was the worst in the league. Not relevant huh?

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

saintswhodi · 07-01-2005, 12:38 PM

Wow, you did a pretty nice job of arguing against yourself.

You know times are slow when members have to resort to arguing an old debate against themselves. lol

GoldenTomb · 07-01-2005, 12:39 PM

.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.

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.

Euphoria · 07-01-2005, 01:26 PM

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.

SaintFanInATLHELL · 07-01-2005, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by GoldenTomb

.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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

SaintFanInATLHELL · 07-01-2005, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

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

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

saintswhodi · 07-01-2005, 01:52 PM

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.

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.

Euphoria · 07-01-2005, 01:52 PM

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

SaintFanInATLHELL · 07-01-2005, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

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.

Definite co-sign on that on.

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.

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

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.

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

So you go back to the drawing board and you revamp o-line

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.

and overhaul the D which they seem to be doing every year... now lets see what happens this year.

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

4saintspirit · 07-01-2005, 02:12 PM

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.

07-01-2005, 12:09 PM	#1
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,773	It's time for the Brooks/anti-Brooks debates again. I've seen the stirrings in the last few posts: Originally Posted by saintswhodi I am done with Brooks. Trade him for some live bait or something. Originally Posted by papz No one questions Brooks physical attributes, he's extremely gifted. Everyone is just disgusted that he hasn't put it all together and taken this team to the next level. Originally Posted by Gil Brandt Brooks need to improve on his 2004 numbers when his quarterback rating of 79.5 (ranked 19th in the league). 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: Originally Posted by whodat How ridiculous is it that this "analysis" talked all about our offense and then said, PS, their defense was the worst in the league. Not relevant huh? 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
	Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.

07-01-2005, 12:39 PM	#3
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591	Re: It's time for the Brooks/anti-Brooks debates again. .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. 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.
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591

07-01-2005, 01:26 PM	#4
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	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.
	E U P H O R I A

07-01-2005, 01:40 PM	#5
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,773	Re: It's time for the Brooks/anti-Brooks debates again. Originally Posted by GoldenTomb .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. Last I checked it wasn't too bad these days being the Colts. 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. 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. But it's a huge judgement error that has not been corrected. We are still weak at defensive tackle. 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. 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

07-01-2005, 01:44 PM	#6
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,773	Originally Posted by saintswhodi Wow, you did a pretty nice job of arguing against yourself. You know times are slow when members have to resort to arguing an old debate against themselves. lol 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

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

07-01-2005, 12:38 PM	#2
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Wow, you did a pretty nice job of arguing against yourself. You know times are slow when members have to resort to arguing an old debate against themselves. lol

07-01-2005, 01:52 PM	#7
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	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. 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.

07-01-2005, 01:56 PM	#9
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,773	Re: RE: Re: It Originally Posted by Euphoria 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. Definite co-sign on that on. 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. Like the Minnesota game last season. And the season before that for that matter. 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. Very much agreed here. But it has happened before. The 2002 KC Cheifs finished last in total defense yet had an 8-8 record. So you go back to the drawing board and you revamp o-line 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. and overhaul the D which they seem to be doing every year... now lets see what happens this year. 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
	Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.

07-01-2005, 02:12 PM	#10
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690	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.
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690