Brooks

4saintspirit · 07-05-2005, 07:48 AM

It is apparent that there is no real middle ground when it comes to Brooks -- Fair enough -- there are many facts about Brooks that span all sides -- Fact -- he is a tremendous athlete with a gun for an arm -- Fact -- when he is on he is one of the better QBs in the league Fact -- when he is off he is truly awful -- Fact -- Consistency escapes Brooks -- one never knows from game to game -- from quarter to quarter from play to play what Brooks is going to do -- Fact -- Brooks does not seem to be able to read defenses --

The list goes on and on -- I can say this -- he is not the biggest rpoblem on our team but I can also say that I am a little tired of his ego being about 10 times the size of his performance -- Brooks is easy to dislike - he opens his mouth at the wrong times -- he says stupid things -- blames everyone else on the team but never himself -- basically he is full of it -- If he had one season where he played close to his potential people would love Brooks

saintswhodi · 07-05-2005, 09:38 AM

If he had one season where he played close to his potential people would love Brooks

I think that's it in a nutshell. I praised his perfomrance in the final Carolina game of the season. If he had been doing that all his career he would be an annual pro-bowler and get all the accolades he feels he deserves. Unfortunately since he has been here complete games like that have been a rare bird.

saintz08 · 07-05-2005, 07:58 PM

TOP goes way down when you have to throw a lot. I don't see the relevance? TOP also goes up when the defense isn't on the field forever.

Time of Possession is always an interesting stat , it creates a couple of variables . For instance , ask " Where did the Saints defense rank in 2004 ?? " and 9 out of 10 posters would say dead last . Total Yards per game allowed is a bad way to check a defense , because it does not factor the offense pulling up lame .

Consider yards per play as an average , it factors the yards allowed by the amount of time on the field .

The 5 worst N.F.L. defenses 2004
5. Minnesota
4. Indianapolis
3. Oakland
2. Kansas City
1. New Orleans

Yards Per Play Factor , and the order changes .

5. Green Bay with 5.7 yards per play - 967 plays
4. Minnesota with 5.8 yards per play - 1018 plays
3. New Orleans with 5.8 yards per play - 1067 plays
2. Tennessee with 5.9 yards per play - 977 plays
1. Kansas City with 6.3 yards per play - 960 plays

jnormand · 07-05-2005, 09:35 PM

Everyone has a excellent points. I have to agree with 4saints on this. No matter what everyone's opinion is...the fact remains that no one REALLY knows how Brooks will play this year. The one thing everyone CAN agree on is that AB is going to be the starter and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Same thing goes for the defense. No one really know if this group is going to be much more improved this season. Everyone has their opinions, but it still is a prediction.

When I read these Brooks threads, I see both points of view on the guy. Fact is, I know that he SHOULD play better this year, but I don't know for sure if he will. No one does. I used to be a huge fan of AB. His inconsistency and immaturity has made me question his reliability. No matter what, he is our starter. I don't think Brooks is a terrible quarterback, he just has a lot of room for improvement. I can think of quarterbacks I would rather have, but I can also think of a lot more quarterbacks I'm glad the Saints don't have. He has the tools and the talent around him to put up fantastic numbers...lets just hope he comes to play this season.

SaintFanInATLHELL · 07-05-2005, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by Saint_LB

Originally Posted by JKool

. We have won games with Brooks .

Yep, and we have lost just as many.

- everyone agrees there are other problems with the team - and we have addressed other need spots.

Agreed. Why is it that we address every spot of need except the QB. The only explanation would be that they think he is eventually going to put it all together.

How about the simple explanation that the position is being handled well enough that it doesn't merit a change.

There's always the presumption that there's a problem so egregious at the position that it must be changed.

Quick Quiz: Name all NFL QBs that have had at least 20TD passes and 3500+ yards each of the last 4 years?

It's a really short list dude!

We all hoped that after the 2000 season, but this is 2005, and the person playing QB has not achieved the level of consistency that is necessary to play the position.

Back to the quick quiz. What exactly kind of consistency do you want? Quantify it please.
And please no "I know it when I see it..." type handwaving.

And before you talk about QB rating make sure that you read this article:

http://www.bluedonut.com/qbrating.htm

That describes its invention and the issues associated with it.

How long do we wait? Would it be such a terrible thing to put him on the bench when he is hurt?

That event sir was more than 2 years ago. That sir was a coach's decision. It was the wrong decision. However why do you blame the player for that, and not the coach?

All I keep hearing about Brooks is that he's inconsistent, makes boneheaded plays and needs to be replaced. Please describe a realistic replacement to me.

Also Joe Horn hasn't been replaced in this tenure you've described. Why not get rid of him too?

SFIAH

SaintFanInATLHELL · 07-05-2005, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by 4saintspirit

The list goes on and on -- I can say this -- he is not the biggest rpoblem on our team

Co-sign on that.

but I can also say that I am a little tired of his ego being about 10 times the size of his performance -- Brooks is easy to dislike - he opens his mouth at the wrong times -- he says stupid things -- blames everyone else on the team but never himself -- basically he is full of it --

Co-sign on that too.

If he had one season where he played close to his potential people would love Brooks

I disagree. Too much water under the bridge. I think that even if this team won the SB, there would still be folks calling for his head.

SFIAH

jnormand · 07-06-2005, 12:21 AM

How about the simple explanation that the position is being handled well enough that it doesn't merit a change.

Agreed.

jnormand · 07-06-2005, 12:38 AM

I think the reason people have such a problem with AB is because he has the potential to be so much better. I kind of fell off the "Brooks Bandwagon" when I saw him throw the ball backwards a couple times. When, year after year, I kept hearing how he was going to be much more of a leader, but that observation never materialized. At first the smiling after a game changing interception didn't bother me much, but after seeing it a few more times, it got on my nerves. I don't think the Saints need to get rid of him, I just want him to play at the level he has the ability to play at. A lot of people have already made up their mind about AB. To those people, he sucks, he needs to be cut, he needs to be replaced. Even though he has lost some of my confindence, I still have a little confidence that he will be great this year. Like I said, I can think of a lot of other teams that are in a worse situation at Quarterback than the Saints. I think, eventually, Brooks will mature into a fine QB. That may start this season, it may start in 3 years....who knows.

To me Brooks at QB is kind of like a Stallworth at WR. He has had fantastic games and really poor games. Stallworth is inconsistent, but has the ability to change the tempo of the game entirely. Like Stallworth, I wouldn't cut him or bench him, he just needs to work harder on consistently playing at a high level.

saintz08 · 07-06-2005, 12:53 AM

Back to the quick quiz. What exactly kind of consistency do you want? Quantify it please.
And please no "I know it when I see it..." type handwaving.

Let me give you the list :

Pennington - 65.4 %
McNabb - 64.0 %
Manning - 67.6 %
Bulger - 66.2 %
Culpepper - 69.2 %
Brady - 60.8 %
Roethlisberger - 66.4 %
Hasselbeck - 58.9 %
Brees - 65.5 %
Plummer - 58.2 %
Vick - 56.4 %
Favre - 64.1 %

Aaron Brooks - 57.0 % completion percentage . At 57.0 % Brooks is not fit to serve drinks on the Pro Bowl party bus to the quarterbacks in the Play Offs .

Consistency ??? 62.0% at season end .

2000 58.2 %
2001 55.9 %
2002 53.6 %
2003 59.1 %
2004 57.0 %

Brooks aint never done it and wont ever do it ........

BrooksMustGo · 07-06-2005, 12:58 AM

Isn't it worth asking this: if the defense were improved, and the starting cast were improved, isn't it possible (based on the evidence from the last four games) that we can win with Brooks?

Kool raises a good point (as always).

I would offer the suggestion that most Brooks debates turn on football as a team sport. (I will set aside the arguments that are based on Brooks' personality or cap number for the moment, since they don't generate as much statistical argument.)

I will basically agree with this statement: "If every other unit on the team played lights out every week while Brooks remains basically the same, then the Saints are a deep playoff team." For the sake of discussion, I'm going to offer a suggest the 2 poles of the arguments about the QB position. Since they are the poles, they are both extreme and I'm not suggesting that any one person holds these views entirely. I think we basically fall along a spectrum between these poles.

Option 1--Many people feel that the QB position has to be seen in the entire team context. Thus, the QB cannot bear the full responsibility for wins or losses. As I see it, there are a couple of flaws with this argument.

1. It seems to encourage finger pointing. While losses cannot be all of AB's fault, it seems to be easier to blame losses on Venturi, McCarthy, Deuce, drops, the secondary, linebackers, et al. For example, if there were a group of rabid Venturi fans posting on the board, I can imagine them saying, "Football is a team sport, Venturi can't win them by himself."

2. It depends on the idea that the QB's contribution is no different than say the SS's or the WLB. I agree that football is a total team effort involving no less than 24 guys. However, it's hard to seriously suggest that in terms of compensation and responsibility the QB is no more important than any other member of the team.

Option 2--Many people feel like the QB is the on the field general and has the responsibility to carry the team on his back when the going gets tough. I see a couple of flaws in this argument too.

1. It assumes that the QB has control over some phases of the game that he just doesn't have. For instance, I think any team can give up 200+ yards rushing and realistically expect to win games, no matter who the QB is. Even if the QB plays perfectly (as Elway did so often in his early career), it still may not be enough to win games or championships.

2. It tends to require that somehow that QB be "larger than life". Not only must the QB be smart enough to read defenses, but he must motivate the entire team, command the situation, be classy and humble, he also needs to be able to make all the throws and still have enough left in the 4th quarter to carry the team on his back. Even though only 32 guys in the whole country get to be starting NFL QBs, everyone has their limits. We have a man, not superman. Not everyone is "larger than life".

I will illustrate with the Packers loss to the Eagles in the playoffs 2 years ago. The way I saw it, Brett Favre made a mistake and threw that game away. However, Favre is one of those larger than life guys and is immune from mistakes. So the Packers fire the defensive coordinator because if the defense had held the Eagles to fewer points, Brett wouldn't have had his back against the wall and wouldn't have thrown the game away.

Most of these debates on Brooks seem to have a similar dynamic, except Brooks is not "larger than life". So we are left to figure out who to blame for our mediocre record for the past 4 years.

So ending with Kool's original thought--I would agree that this team can be a winner with AB if all other units in the team play lights out every week. The problem is--I don't see all the defensive units, special teams and offensive units playing lights out all season this year. At the same time, I don't see AB playing lights out either. I agree that he will probably throw for 3000+ and 20 TD's, but I won't be stunned if we miss the playoffs (heartbroken yes, but not stunned).

So in a nutshell, I'd like to see better production from the QB position, just seems unlikely that AB will be doing that.

[/code]

07-05-2005, 07:48 AM	#21
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690	It is apparent that there is no real middle ground when it comes to Brooks -- Fair enough -- there are many facts about Brooks that span all sides -- Fact -- he is a tremendous athlete with a gun for an arm -- Fact -- when he is on he is one of the better QBs in the league Fact -- when he is off he is truly awful -- Fact -- Consistency escapes Brooks -- one never knows from game to game -- from quarter to quarter from play to play what Brooks is going to do -- Fact -- Brooks does not seem to be able to read defenses -- The list goes on and on -- I can say this -- he is not the biggest rpoblem on our team but I can also say that I am a little tired of his ego being about 10 times the size of his performance -- Brooks is easy to dislike - he opens his mouth at the wrong times -- he says stupid things -- blames everyone else on the team but never himself -- basically he is full of it -- If he had one season where he played close to his potential people would love Brooks
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690

07-05-2005, 07:58 PM	#23
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	TOP goes way down when you have to throw a lot. I don't see the relevance? TOP also goes up when the defense isn't on the field forever. Time of Possession is always an interesting stat , it creates a couple of variables . For instance , ask " Where did the Saints defense rank in 2004 ?? " and 9 out of 10 posters would say dead last . Total Yards per game allowed is a bad way to check a defense , because it does not factor the offense pulling up lame . Consider yards per play as an average , it factors the yards allowed by the amount of time on the field . The 5 worst N.F.L. defenses 2004 5. Minnesota 4. Indianapolis 3. Oakland 2. Kansas City 1. New Orleans Yards Per Play Factor , and the order changes . 5. Green Bay with 5.7 yards per play - 967 plays 4. Minnesota with 5.8 yards per play - 1018 plays 3. New Orleans with 5.8 yards per play - 1067 plays 2. Tennessee with 5.9 yards per play - 977 plays 1. Kansas City with 6.3 yards per play - 960 plays
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020

07-05-2005, 11:54 PM	#25
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by Saint_LB Originally Posted by JKool . We have won games with Brooks . Yep, and we have lost just as many. - everyone agrees there are other problems with the team - and we have addressed other need spots. Agreed. Why is it that we address every spot of need except the QB. The only explanation would be that they think he is eventually going to put it all together. How about the simple explanation that the position is being handled well enough that it doesn't merit a change. There's always the presumption that there's a problem so egregious at the position that it must be changed. Quick Quiz: Name all NFL QBs that have had at least 20TD passes and 3500+ yards each of the last 4 years? It's a really short list dude! We all hoped that after the 2000 season, but this is 2005, and the person playing QB has not achieved the level of consistency that is necessary to play the position. Back to the quick quiz. What exactly kind of consistency do you want? Quantify it please. And please no "I know it when I see it..." type handwaving. And before you talk about QB rating make sure that you read this article: http://www.bluedonut.com/qbrating.htm That describes its invention and the issues associated with it. How long do we wait? Would it be such a terrible thing to put him on the bench when he is hurt? That event sir was more than 2 years ago. That sir was a coach's decision. It was the wrong decision. However why do you blame the player for that, and not the coach? All I keep hearing about Brooks is that he's inconsistent, makes boneheaded plays and needs to be replaced. Please describe a realistic replacement to me. Also Joe Horn hasn't been replaced in this tenure you've described. Why not get rid of him too? 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.

07-05-2005, 11:57 PM	#26
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by 4saintspirit The list goes on and on -- I can say this -- he is not the biggest rpoblem on our team Co-sign on that. but I can also say that I am a little tired of his ego being about 10 times the size of his performance -- Brooks is easy to dislike - he opens his mouth at the wrong times -- he says stupid things -- blames everyone else on the team but never himself -- basically he is full of it -- Co-sign on that too. If he had one season where he played close to his potential people would love Brooks I disagree. Too much water under the bridge. I think that even if this team won the SB, there would still be folks calling for his head. SFIAH

07-06-2005, 12:53 AM	#29
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	Back to the quick quiz. What exactly kind of consistency do you want? Quantify it please. And please no "I know it when I see it..." type handwaving. Let me give you the list : Pennington - 65.4 % McNabb - 64.0 % Manning - 67.6 % Bulger - 66.2 % Culpepper - 69.2 % Brady - 60.8 % Roethlisberger - 66.4 % Hasselbeck - 58.9 % Brees - 65.5 % Plummer - 58.2 % Vick - 56.4 % Favre - 64.1 % Aaron Brooks - 57.0 % completion percentage . At 57.0 % Brooks is not fit to serve drinks on the Pro Bowl party bus to the quarterbacks in the Play Offs . Consistency ??? 62.0% at season end . 2000 58.2 % 2001 55.9 % 2002 53.6 % 2003 59.1 % 2004 57.0 % Brooks aint never done it and wont ever do it ........
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020

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

07-05-2005, 09:38 AM	#22
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	If he had one season where he played close to his potential people would love Brooks I think that's it in a nutshell. I praised his perfomrance in the final Carolina game of the season. If he had been doing that all his career he would be an annual pro-bowler and get all the accolades he feels he deserves. Unfortunately since he has been here complete games like that have been a rare bird.

07-05-2005, 09:35 PM	#24
jnormand 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Free State of Idaho Posts: 5,662	Everyone has a excellent points. I have to agree with 4saints on this. No matter what everyone's opinion is...the fact remains that no one REALLY knows how Brooks will play this year. The one thing everyone CAN agree on is that AB is going to be the starter and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Same thing goes for the defense. No one really know if this group is going to be much more improved this season. Everyone has their opinions, but it still is a prediction. When I read these Brooks threads, I see both points of view on the guy. Fact is, I know that he SHOULD play better this year, but I don't know for sure if he will. No one does. I used to be a huge fan of AB. His inconsistency and immaturity has made me question his reliability. No matter what, he is our starter. I don't think Brooks is a terrible quarterback, he just has a lot of room for improvement. I can think of quarterbacks I would rather have, but I can also think of a lot more quarterbacks I'm glad the Saints don't have. He has the tools and the talent around him to put up fantastic numbers...lets just hope he comes to play this season.

07-06-2005, 12:21 AM	#27
jnormand 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Free State of Idaho Posts: 5,662	How about the simple explanation that the position is being handled well enough that it doesn't merit a change. Agreed.

07-06-2005, 12:38 AM	#28
jnormand 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Free State of Idaho Posts: 5,662	I think the reason people have such a problem with AB is because he has the potential to be so much better. I kind of fell off the "Brooks Bandwagon" when I saw him throw the ball backwards a couple times. When, year after year, I kept hearing how he was going to be much more of a leader, but that observation never materialized. At first the smiling after a game changing interception didn't bother me much, but after seeing it a few more times, it got on my nerves. I don't think the Saints need to get rid of him, I just want him to play at the level he has the ability to play at. A lot of people have already made up their mind about AB. To those people, he sucks, he needs to be cut, he needs to be replaced. Even though he has lost some of my confindence, I still have a little confidence that he will be great this year. Like I said, I can think of a lot of other teams that are in a worse situation at Quarterback than the Saints. I think, eventually, Brooks will mature into a fine QB. That may start this season, it may start in 3 years....who knows. To me Brooks at QB is kind of like a Stallworth at WR. He has had fantastic games and really poor games. Stallworth is inconsistent, but has the ability to change the tempo of the game entirely. Like Stallworth, I wouldn't cut him or bench him, he just needs to work harder on consistently playing at a high level.

07-06-2005, 12:58 AM	#30
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Isn't it worth asking this: if the defense were improved, and the starting cast were improved, isn't it possible (based on the evidence from the last four games) that we can win with Brooks? Kool raises a good point (as always). I would offer the suggestion that most Brooks debates turn on football as a team sport. (I will set aside the arguments that are based on Brooks' personality or cap number for the moment, since they don't generate as much statistical argument.) I will basically agree with this statement: "If every other unit on the team played lights out every week while Brooks remains basically the same, then the Saints are a deep playoff team." For the sake of discussion, I'm going to offer a suggest the 2 poles of the arguments about the QB position. Since they are the poles, they are both extreme and I'm not suggesting that any one person holds these views entirely. I think we basically fall along a spectrum between these poles. Option 1--Many people feel that the QB position has to be seen in the entire team context. Thus, the QB cannot bear the full responsibility for wins or losses. As I see it, there are a couple of flaws with this argument. 1. It seems to encourage finger pointing. While losses cannot be all of AB's fault, it seems to be easier to blame losses on Venturi, McCarthy, Deuce, drops, the secondary, linebackers, et al. For example, if there were a group of rabid Venturi fans posting on the board, I can imagine them saying, "Football is a team sport, Venturi can't win them by himself." 2. It depends on the idea that the QB's contribution is no different than say the SS's or the WLB. I agree that football is a total team effort involving no less than 24 guys. However, it's hard to seriously suggest that in terms of compensation and responsibility the QB is no more important than any other member of the team. Option 2--Many people feel like the QB is the on the field general and has the responsibility to carry the team on his back when the going gets tough. I see a couple of flaws in this argument too. 1. It assumes that the QB has control over some phases of the game that he just doesn't have. For instance, I think any team can give up 200+ yards rushing and realistically expect to win games, no matter who the QB is. Even if the QB plays perfectly (as Elway did so often in his early career), it still may not be enough to win games or championships. 2. It tends to require that somehow that QB be "larger than life". Not only must the QB be smart enough to read defenses, but he must motivate the entire team, command the situation, be classy and humble, he also needs to be able to make all the throws and still have enough left in the 4th quarter to carry the team on his back. Even though only 32 guys in the whole country get to be starting NFL QBs, everyone has their limits. We have a man, not superman. Not everyone is "larger than life". I will illustrate with the Packers loss to the Eagles in the playoffs 2 years ago. The way I saw it, Brett Favre made a mistake and threw that game away. However, Favre is one of those larger than life guys and is immune from mistakes. So the Packers fire the defensive coordinator because if the defense had held the Eagles to fewer points, Brett wouldn't have had his back against the wall and wouldn't have thrown the game away. Most of these debates on Brooks seem to have a similar dynamic, except Brooks is not "larger than life". So we are left to figure out who to blame for our mediocre record for the past 4 years. So ending with Kool's original thought--I would agree that this team can be a winner with AB if all other units in the team play lights out every week. The problem is--I don't see all the defensive units, special teams and offensive units playing lights out all season this year. At the same time, I don't see AB playing lights out either. I agree that he will probably throw for 3000+ and 20 TD's, but I won't be stunned if we miss the playoffs (heartbroken yes, but not stunned). So in a nutshell, I'd like to see better production from the QB position, just seems unlikely that AB will be doing that. [/code]