Brooks

WhoDat · 07-07-2005, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by JKool

I agree that blame should not be distributed evenly accross all players, units, teams, coaches, and plays. This is why I started harping on "blame analysis/distribution". I certainly agree with the other camp on this - the QB is the figure head of the offense (and sometimes the whole team). As a result, he should be held MORE accountable than many other players, units, plays, etc. Of course, given a 45 man roster and a number of coaches on any game day, you'd be hard pressed to argue that his responsibility is anymore than 4-5% (you do need to include the other team, and it seem unreasonable to me that any player who played could be less than say 0.1% responsible for the outcome of the game). It is here that I have to say the other camp doesn't look so promising to me - the QB can't be held so darned accountable that things like Wins and Losses are all his.

I think your math is faulty J. While I agree with your principle, I think you need to re-evaluate how you're applying it. For example, of the 55 or so players an coaches, only 30 players likely actually participate. Take out the guys who block on punt teams and you're really looking at major unit starters and kickers, for the most part, so 25 players maybe. Of those, there's relative importance of the position, the player's value on the team, and the importance of any "mistake."

So, for example, Wayne Gandy missing a block on a sweep right is probably very minimal, as the play is going about as far in the other direction as possible. Likewise, you have to differentiate b/w being beaten on a play, and making a mistake. Gandy could get beat 5 times in a game. That's bad and no doubt affects the team. However, those five poor plays might be less relevant than one bad decision by say, Michael Lewis on a kick return to try and lateral the ball, which results in a fumble and a score for the other team. In that case Gandy is clearly more important a player, at a more imporant position, who "negatively impacted" the team on more plays, but if the Saints lose by 7 then Lewis' fumble, IMO, deserves a tremendous amount of responsibility. That number increases significantly, if the fumble occurs, say, with 1:30 to go in the game. If it happens on the opening kickoff, it still carries weight, but less so.

Moreover, you have to consider the relative importance of the player himself. Deuce having a bad game, IMO, is far more destructive than Boo having a bad game.

IMO, there are mistakes made on every play. Players are beaten on every play. However, there are only a few key plays in a game that really change it, most of the time. Missing the open read for an easy score, blowing the wrong gap and allowing a huge gain when you really need a stop, missing a field goal, etc. Thus, a team can play an imperfect game, but be in a position to win, and one decision can change that. IMO, in that case, that one decision deserves far more blame than the slew of minor errors that may have occurred throughout the game. Thus, a single player could be 95% percent to blame for a loss. It's rare to see such a high number, but my point is that it is possible. Moreover, look at those numbers relatively. If a single player accounts for 12% of the blame, while the team average is .5%, that's a big problem, no?

saintz08 · 07-07-2005, 09:58 PM

WhoDat

Speaking of Brees and his development . Have you seen the bio on Turk Schonert , the new quarterbacks coach ??? Man , this guys resume is like the Grim Reapers goin out on the town list .

WhoDat you sleepin through posts again ????

WhoDat · 07-08-2005, 10:35 AM

LOL - just yours. Who has he coached?

Euphoria · 07-08-2005, 10:38 AM

In 1982 he had a 100 percent completion rate with the Bengals.

He worked with Doug Flutie in Baffalo. Todd Collins and Alex Van Pelt.

JKool · 07-08-2005, 01:40 PM

Who, while I'm inclined to agree with you that the number could be quite high and that it varies by game - based on play calling, game plan, opponents' play, and so on - I doubt it could ever be anywhere near as high as 95%.

Your post is quite good for helping me think about blame analyses though. It seems to me that to be in a position for that play to matter a lot, much else had to occur. I suppose, you are right that small mistakes (like missing the backside block) aren't as bad as throwing an INT. Of course, taking a 4 step drop instead of a 5 step drop isn't as bad as wiffing on a playside block. Thus, I find it difficult to assess this.

I guess, the idea is this - if 30 or so guys (including coaches) play a goodly number of downs a game, then the blame on each should be roughly 3.3% each. Argument should then be provided to increase or decrease this number. I agree that things like relevant importance of the player in the game plan, downs played, timing of the errors/successes, and the timing of big plays can drive this number up greatly.

However, I think that it is reasonable to assume that a player's blame could never excede the blame an individual unit might take (except in extreme cases). For example, if the offense usually takes credit/blame for 40% of a Win or Loss, then no one player on the offense could have a higher blame rating for that game that is greater than 40%.

Furthermore, my point was intended as general. That is, over time, a QB, say, could never really be much more than 5-7% responsible for W/L. The reason for taking it over time is, of course, to washout the odd occurrences you postulate. However, it is a good point you make regarding individual games.

I suppose an additional argument could be made regarding having a floor on the blame per player (including those that don't play). If they'd worked harder in the offseason, in practice, and so on, they would not be sitting on the sideline during the game. Thus, they are still, in some sense, responsible for the performance of the team on any given Sunday. I'm not sure what I think of this argument, but it seems resonable.

Finally, I'm not sure where you were going with the 12% vs. 0.5% being a problem. Certainly some players are more responsible for the team winning or losing, but how much more is all I was trying to point out. If a player carrying a high number like 8% in the blame distribution consistently plays poorly, I do take that to be a serious problem - if that is what you were asking. I was merely trying to put it in perspective.

JKool · 07-08-2005, 01:44 PM

I thought of a helpful example, actually.

Consider our playoff win. Hakim drops the ball. Is he more than 50% responsible for our win. If he is, how our team played the entire game is less important to the win than his drop? That doesn't sound right to me. Setting the numbers that high lead to unintuitive consequences like this. Thus, there is good reason to believe that the numbers (ratios technically) will be relatively low, since no one player that is on the field (and perhaps even those who don't make the feild) has NO impact on whether the team records a W/L.

WhoDat · 07-08-2005, 02:48 PM

OK J, I see your point, but I still disagree with your baseline. For example - you said by assuming that there are 30 key players and coaches in a game, that each player should start with 3% of the blame/credit and then arguments should be made from there. Likewise, no player should be able be able to get a larger share of the blame/credit then his unit (with which I agree), and each unit has a relative amount of blame/credit (e.g. 40%, 40%, 20% - O, D, ST). With these ideas, I disagree.

First, I'll address the "unit" analysis. To see why it doesn't make sense, just think of the Dome Patrol days. How many games did the defense allow 50 yards rushing, 150 receiving, rack up 6 sacks and 3 take-aways, just to lose 7-6. In that case, IMO, you cannot ask much more of a defense that what they gave. You can, however, ask a lot more of an offense. So while the play(s) that allowed the one score on D might be the "difference" in this game, it's the offense that is ultimately far more responsible for the loss - like 80% responsible, I'd say.

Now, to look at the players individually, again I'd argue with your analysis. Imagine a game in which the offense and defense both had fairly average days. The D allows 10 points on 87 yards rushing and 212 passing, has 1 INT and 3 sacks. Not a bad day at all. The offense racks up 125 yards rushing, 285 yards passing, and scores 21 points. Again, a good day's work. Now assume that the team loses 23-21 b/c the QB throws 3 INTs and fumbles twice, once in his redzone and once in his opponents. The turnovers lead to 13 points and the difference in the game. The points come off of 1 INT return for a TD, and two fieldgoals kicked from the spot the turnover occurred (our defense holds after all the TOs). Now, you take that one player's performance out, and both units played well enough to win. Sure there would have been mistakes, but seemingly no major ones, and it seems that the distribution is about 50/50. But that one terrible performance by the QB changed the entire course of the game. It no doubt changed how the coaches had to call the game, how the player's teammates had to play (most likely late in the game), and ultimately, it changed the end result. Why can that one player not be 80% responsible?

WhoDat · 07-08-2005, 02:56 PM

One more thing J:

I guess at the core of my argument is a belief that mistake happen all the time for every team in every game. The issue to me is context, and IMO, there are a few key plays in every game that make the difference. Wayne Gandy might miss 7 blocks in a game that lead to 3 sacks, 1 tackle for a loss, and he may also have 3 false starts. That's a bad game and it's easy to say "what if he hadn't missed those blocks." But ultimately, that happens all the time to every team. Those are not that meaningful to me if the game is tied 20-20 and with 3 seconds left on the clock Devery Henderson is running down the sideline in the clear, but slows down to showboat, has the ball stripped, and it's return for a TD with no time on the clock and the Saints lose. At that point, Gandy's bad day is essentially meaningless. Therefore, the player, his position, importance on the team, etc. all matter. But ultimately, it's what happens or doesn't happen on those few key plays that make the difference in a game, to me anyway.

RDOX · 07-08-2005, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by JKool

Who, while I'm inclined to agree with you that the number could be quite high and that it varies by game - based on play calling, game plan, opponents' play, and so on - I doubt it could ever be anywhere near as high as 95%.

Your post is quite good for helping me think about blame analyses though. It seems to me that to be in a position for that play to matter a lot, much else had to occur. I suppose, you are right that small mistakes (like missing the backside block) aren't as bad as throwing an INT. Of course, taking a 4 step drop instead of a 5 step drop isn't as bad as wiffing on a playside block. Thus, I find it difficult to assess this.

I guess, the idea is this - if 30 or so guys (including coaches) play a goodly number of downs a game, then the blame on each should be roughly 3.3% each. Argument should then be provided to increase or decrease this number. I agree that things like relevant importance of the player in the game plan, downs played, timing of the errors/successes, and the timing of big plays can drive this number up greatly.

However, I think that it is reasonable to assume that a player's blame could never excede the blame an individual unit might take (except in extreme cases). For example, if the offense usually takes credit/blame for 40% of a Win or Loss, then no one player on the offense could have a higher blame rating for that game that is greater than 40%.

Furthermore, my point was intended as general. That is, over time, a QB, say, could never really be much more than 5-7% responsible for W/L. The reason for taking it over time is, of course, to washout the odd occurrences you postulate. However, it is a good point you make regarding individual games.

I suppose an additional argument could be made regarding having a floor on the blame per player (including those that don't play). If they'd worked harder in the offseason, in practice, and so on, they would not be sitting on the sideline during the game. Thus, they are still, in some sense, responsible for the performance of the team on any given Sunday. I'm not sure what I think of this argument, but it seems resonable.

Finally, I'm not sure where you were going with the 12% vs. 0.5% being a problem. Certainly some players are more responsible for the team winning or losing, but how much more is all I was trying to point out. If a player carrying a high number like 8% in the blame distribution consistently plays poorly, I do take that to be a serious problem - if that is what you were asking. I was merely trying to put it in perspective.

JKool and WhoDat!

Trying to break down the fault or blame percentage is like trying to figure out the percentage of times a fish will fall off of a mountain bike. In my mind the entire team is to share the credit or blame for a particular win or loss. My basic premise is that Brooks doesn't see himself as a part of the problem. He is ready to take the Lion's Share of the credit for the win, but distances himself from any participation in a loss. Even when he makes boneheaded plays. This is not to say that Aaron Brooks is the great Satan, but neither is he the Messiah to take us into Superbowl heaven.

I belive that WhoDat said it best. He is an above average athlete with below average football skills. When he accepts that and he steps up to the plate with some humility, then he could start being all that he believes himself to be.

My two cents.

trimolo · 07-08-2005, 03:31 PM

I fell that no matter a persons ego his performance speaks about his value....if Joe Horn catches 85-95% of his passes he is doing his job....and grades A+, if he makes those catches and throws a few TD's in.....even better....if Brooks hits his receivers in a decent spot were they have an opportunity to cacth it.....great...if he doesn't fumble in a situation where it kills us, o.k....if the coaches can't make adjustments....for shame..

07-07-2005, 11:05 AM	#41
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Originally Posted by JKool I agree that blame should not be distributed evenly accross all players, units, teams, coaches, and plays. This is why I started harping on "blame analysis/distribution". I certainly agree with the other camp on this - the QB is the figure head of the offense (and sometimes the whole team). As a result, he should be held MORE accountable than many other players, units, plays, etc. Of course, given a 45 man roster and a number of coaches on any game day, you'd be hard pressed to argue that his responsibility is anymore than 4-5% (you do need to include the other team, and it seem unreasonable to me that any player who played could be less than say 0.1% responsible for the outcome of the game). It is here that I have to say the other camp doesn't look so promising to me - the QB can't be held so darned accountable that things like Wins and Losses are all his. I think your math is faulty J. While I agree with your principle, I think you need to re-evaluate how you're applying it. For example, of the 55 or so players an coaches, only 30 players likely actually participate. Take out the guys who block on punt teams and you're really looking at major unit starters and kickers, for the most part, so 25 players maybe. Of those, there's relative importance of the position, the player's value on the team, and the importance of any "mistake." So, for example, Wayne Gandy missing a block on a sweep right is probably very minimal, as the play is going about as far in the other direction as possible. Likewise, you have to differentiate b/w being beaten on a play, and making a mistake. Gandy could get beat 5 times in a game. That's bad and no doubt affects the team. However, those five poor plays might be less relevant than one bad decision by say, Michael Lewis on a kick return to try and lateral the ball, which results in a fumble and a score for the other team. In that case Gandy is clearly more important a player, at a more imporant position, who "negatively impacted" the team on more plays, but if the Saints lose by 7 then Lewis' fumble, IMO, deserves a tremendous amount of responsibility. That number increases significantly, if the fumble occurs, say, with 1:30 to go in the game. If it happens on the opening kickoff, it still carries weight, but less so. Moreover, you have to consider the relative importance of the player himself. Deuce having a bad game, IMO, is far more destructive than Boo having a bad game. IMO, there are mistakes made on every play. Players are beaten on every play. However, there are only a few key plays in a game that really change it, most of the time. Missing the open read for an easy score, blowing the wrong gap and allowing a huge gain when you really need a stop, missing a field goal, etc. Thus, a team can play an imperfect game, but be in a position to win, and one decision can change that. IMO, in that case, that one decision deserves far more blame than the slew of minor errors that may have occurred throughout the game. Thus, a single player could be 95% percent to blame for a loss. It's rare to see such a high number, but my point is that it is possible. Moreover, look at those numbers relatively. If a single player accounts for 12% of the blame, while the team average is .5%, that's a big problem, no?
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

07-07-2005, 09:58 PM	#42
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	WhoDat Speaking of Brees and his development . Have you seen the bio on Turk Schonert , the new quarterbacks coach ??? Man , this guys resume is like the Grim Reapers goin out on the town list . WhoDat you sleepin through posts again ????
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020

07-08-2005, 10:35 AM	#43
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	LOL - just yours. Who has he coached?
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

07-08-2005, 01:40 PM	#45
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Who, while I'm inclined to agree with you that the number could be quite high and that it varies by game - based on play calling, game plan, opponents' play, and so on - I doubt it could ever be anywhere near as high as 95%. Your post is quite good for helping me think about blame analyses though. It seems to me that to be in a position for that play to matter a lot, much else had to occur. I suppose, you are right that small mistakes (like missing the backside block) aren't as bad as throwing an INT. Of course, taking a 4 step drop instead of a 5 step drop isn't as bad as wiffing on a playside block. Thus, I find it difficult to assess this. I guess, the idea is this - if 30 or so guys (including coaches) play a goodly number of downs a game, then the blame on each should be roughly 3.3% each. Argument should then be provided to increase or decrease this number. I agree that things like relevant importance of the player in the game plan, downs played, timing of the errors/successes, and the timing of big plays can drive this number up greatly. However, I think that it is reasonable to assume that a player's blame could never excede the blame an individual unit might take (except in extreme cases). For example, if the offense usually takes credit/blame for 40% of a Win or Loss, then no one player on the offense could have a higher blame rating for that game that is greater than 40%. Furthermore, my point was intended as general. That is, over time, a QB, say, could never really be much more than 5-7% responsible for W/L. The reason for taking it over time is, of course, to washout the odd occurrences you postulate. However, it is a good point you make regarding individual games. I suppose an additional argument could be made regarding having a floor on the blame per player (including those that don't play). If they'd worked harder in the offseason, in practice, and so on, they would not be sitting on the sideline during the game. Thus, they are still, in some sense, responsible for the performance of the team on any given Sunday. I'm not sure what I think of this argument, but it seems resonable. Finally, I'm not sure where you were going with the 12% vs. 0.5% being a problem. Certainly some players are more responsible for the team winning or losing, but how much more is all I was trying to point out. If a player carrying a high number like 8% in the blame distribution consistently plays poorly, I do take that to be a serious problem - if that is what you were asking. I was merely trying to put it in perspective.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

07-08-2005, 01:44 PM	#46
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	I thought of a helpful example, actually. Consider our playoff win. Hakim drops the ball. Is he more than 50% responsible for our win. If he is, how our team played the entire game is less important to the win than his drop? That doesn't sound right to me. Setting the numbers that high lead to unintuitive consequences like this. Thus, there is good reason to believe that the numbers (ratios technically) will be relatively low, since no one player that is on the field (and perhaps even those who don't make the feild) has NO impact on whether the team records a W/L.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

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

07-08-2005, 10:38 AM	#44
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	In 1982 he had a 100 percent completion rate with the Bengals. He worked with Doug Flutie in Baffalo. Todd Collins and Alex Van Pelt.

07-08-2005, 02:48 PM	#47
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	OK J, I see your point, but I still disagree with your baseline. For example - you said by assuming that there are 30 key players and coaches in a game, that each player should start with 3% of the blame/credit and then arguments should be made from there. Likewise, no player should be able be able to get a larger share of the blame/credit then his unit (with which I agree), and each unit has a relative amount of blame/credit (e.g. 40%, 40%, 20% - O, D, ST). With these ideas, I disagree. First, I'll address the "unit" analysis. To see why it doesn't make sense, just think of the Dome Patrol days. How many games did the defense allow 50 yards rushing, 150 receiving, rack up 6 sacks and 3 take-aways, just to lose 7-6. In that case, IMO, you cannot ask much more of a defense that what they gave. You can, however, ask a lot more of an offense. So while the play(s) that allowed the one score on D might be the "difference" in this game, it's the offense that is ultimately far more responsible for the loss - like 80% responsible, I'd say. Now, to look at the players individually, again I'd argue with your analysis. Imagine a game in which the offense and defense both had fairly average days. The D allows 10 points on 87 yards rushing and 212 passing, has 1 INT and 3 sacks. Not a bad day at all. The offense racks up 125 yards rushing, 285 yards passing, and scores 21 points. Again, a good day's work. Now assume that the team loses 23-21 b/c the QB throws 3 INTs and fumbles twice, once in his redzone and once in his opponents. The turnovers lead to 13 points and the difference in the game. The points come off of 1 INT return for a TD, and two fieldgoals kicked from the spot the turnover occurred (our defense holds after all the TOs). Now, you take that one player's performance out, and both units played well enough to win. Sure there would have been mistakes, but seemingly no major ones, and it seems that the distribution is about 50/50. But that one terrible performance by the QB changed the entire course of the game. It no doubt changed how the coaches had to call the game, how the player's teammates had to play (most likely late in the game), and ultimately, it changed the end result. Why can that one player not be 80% responsible?
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

07-08-2005, 02:56 PM	#48
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	One more thing J: I guess at the core of my argument is a belief that mistake happen all the time for every team in every game. The issue to me is context, and IMO, there are a few key plays in every game that make the difference. Wayne Gandy might miss 7 blocks in a game that lead to 3 sacks, 1 tackle for a loss, and he may also have 3 false starts. That's a bad game and it's easy to say "what if he hadn't missed those blocks." But ultimately, that happens all the time to every team. Those are not that meaningful to me if the game is tied 20-20 and with 3 seconds left on the clock Devery Henderson is running down the sideline in the clear, but slows down to showboat, has the ball stripped, and it's return for a TD with no time on the clock and the Saints lose. At that point, Gandy's bad day is essentially meaningless. Therefore, the player, his position, importance on the team, etc. all matter. But ultimately, it's what happens or doesn't happen on those few key plays that make the difference in a game, to me anyway.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

07-08-2005, 02:58 PM	#49
RDOX 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 264	Originally Posted by JKool Who, while I'm inclined to agree with you that the number could be quite high and that it varies by game - based on play calling, game plan, opponents' play, and so on - I doubt it could ever be anywhere near as high as 95%. Your post is quite good for helping me think about blame analyses though. It seems to me that to be in a position for that play to matter a lot, much else had to occur. I suppose, you are right that small mistakes (like missing the backside block) aren't as bad as throwing an INT. Of course, taking a 4 step drop instead of a 5 step drop isn't as bad as wiffing on a playside block. Thus, I find it difficult to assess this. I guess, the idea is this - if 30 or so guys (including coaches) play a goodly number of downs a game, then the blame on each should be roughly 3.3% each. Argument should then be provided to increase or decrease this number. I agree that things like relevant importance of the player in the game plan, downs played, timing of the errors/successes, and the timing of big plays can drive this number up greatly. However, I think that it is reasonable to assume that a player's blame could never excede the blame an individual unit might take (except in extreme cases). For example, if the offense usually takes credit/blame for 40% of a Win or Loss, then no one player on the offense could have a higher blame rating for that game that is greater than 40%. Furthermore, my point was intended as general. That is, over time, a QB, say, could never really be much more than 5-7% responsible for W/L. The reason for taking it over time is, of course, to washout the odd occurrences you postulate. However, it is a good point you make regarding individual games. I suppose an additional argument could be made regarding having a floor on the blame per player (including those that don't play). If they'd worked harder in the offseason, in practice, and so on, they would not be sitting on the sideline during the game. Thus, they are still, in some sense, responsible for the performance of the team on any given Sunday. I'm not sure what I think of this argument, but it seems resonable. Finally, I'm not sure where you were going with the 12% vs. 0.5% being a problem. Certainly some players are more responsible for the team winning or losing, but how much more is all I was trying to point out. If a player carrying a high number like 8% in the blame distribution consistently plays poorly, I do take that to be a serious problem - if that is what you were asking. I was merely trying to put it in perspective. JKool and WhoDat! Trying to break down the fault or blame percentage is like trying to figure out the percentage of times a fish will fall off of a mountain bike. In my mind the entire team is to share the credit or blame for a particular win or loss. My basic premise is that Brooks doesn't see himself as a part of the problem. He is ready to take the Lion's Share of the credit for the win, but distances himself from any participation in a loss. Even when he makes boneheaded plays. This is not to say that Aaron Brooks is the great Satan, but neither is he the Messiah to take us into Superbowl heaven. I belive that WhoDat said it best. He is an above average athlete with below average football skills. When he accepts that and he steps up to the plate with some humility, then he could start being all that he believes himself to be. My two cents.
RDOX 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 264

07-08-2005, 03:31 PM	#50
trimolo Rookie Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 16	I fell that no matter a persons ego his performance speaks about his value....if Joe Horn catches 85-95% of his passes he is doing his job....and grades A+, if he makes those catches and throws a few TD's in.....even better....if Brooks hits his receivers in a decent spot were they have an opportunity to cacth it.....great...if he doesn't fumble in a situation where it kills us, o.k....if the coaches can't make adjustments....for shame..