statistics
 

Give me a side to argue on and I can come up with fancy statistics to prove the point -- Basically there is only one statistic which really tells you anything -- Wins and Losses -- I must admit I get so frustrated in reading all of the stats flung on this board -- Lets take a few -- AB is the best Saint QB ever because he threw for X yards -- X TDs and Archie never did that. Different era -- different game -- different team -- means nothing to me -- Lets talk defense -- gave up yards and points -- true enough -- but I can spin it a different way by saying the offense never scored on opening drives -- the offense turned the ball over deep in their own territory -- the offense had so many 3 and outs the defense got tired --

Want the other side -- Ab threw for numerous TDs last year -- AB threw for yards -_ AB had a better 4th quarter QB rating then most other QBs. Oh wait -- overall he had one of the worst.

Now lets look at what really matters -- Wins/Losses -- we had 8 of each last year, the year before etc. It is a team sport -- plenty of blame to go around on this team --

Not supporting Brooks -- not bashing him -- lets just stick to the facts that count -- 8-8

RE: statistics
 

Best Saints QB ever... ok I'll go along with you wins and losses... ok Brooks have how many play off wins??? 1 He is better than all of them put together by your way of thinking because all of them put together they have ZERO!

RE: statistics
 

Good point. The team went 8-8. Brooks didn't go 8-8. The team lost 8 games this year. You can blame AB, you can blame defense, you can blame coaching and you can blame ownership/FO. Fact is, this entire team needs to step up.

RE: statistics
 

I agree to a point, 4SS. Stats have meaning because they help to differentiate why the record is what it is. They also point to trends. Such as the stat in my signature. Since the last 22 SB winners have a top 10 scoring defense, one would think that one would have to have a top 10 scoring defense to win the SB.

The fact that there is blame to go all around has always been my point. I use stats to argue why it's not just one guys fault.

SFIAH (who needs to update his signature)

Re: RE: statistics
 

That is not exactly what I was trying to get across -- Basically all I was trying to point out is that statistics can praise or put blame on a player when the only stat that counts is team victories - While certain players can seem to win or lose games single handedly (a key fumble, and INT or a game winning drive in the last seconds) in reality the game was won or lost by the team -- had the team stepped up that fumble wouldn't have cost the game -- had the team stepped up you wouldn't have needed a game saving drive.

As for the Archie, Brooks debate I think yuou cannot compare the 2 by stats -- a different era etc -- What do the stats say about Peyton/Unitas. Favre/Starr, Ya Tittle/Phil Simms, Culpepper/Tarkenton == You just cannot compare those guys because the game was different in the old days -- Want examples -- Compare the rules to protect QBs in the old days you didn't have those late hit penalties/QBs got routinely clobbered -- What about not being able to level the receiver after 5 yards -- all sorts of different rules which radically affect stats -- That's all I was trying to get across -- The only stat that cannot be turned around is wins and losses and that stat is a team stat not an individual one

Re: RE: statistics
 

.. so you are ok with the wins and losses are the teams doing, but when it comes to the playoff win, it's Brooks who won it, and because of that playoff win, he's the better QB...

.. so Keith Mitchell is a better LB than either Vaughn Johnson, Sam Mills, Pat Swilling, or Rickey Jackson, right? He won a playoff game, the Dome Patrol didn't...

.. this is the "meat" of the Brooks debate: because that SAINTS playoff win, Brooks gets annointed the "best Saints QB ever" and can't do no wrong. After all, it was HIS win, not the team's...

RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

I just don't wanna here Brooks getting the blame for everything when its a team game. If you blame Brooks then you damn well better give him the credit when they win.

RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

Jake Delhomme has 3 playoff wins and one super bowl appearance. FYI.

RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

Who cares about Jake he still lost the SuperBowl with one of the top Defenses in the league...The Saints could have done that...Stop jocking Jake if he was soooooo great, he would be here...he and Brett Farve throw way more INTS that AB...so it's the strength of the team not the QB....TB isn't a great QB, he has a great team and great D...think about it....

RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

Jake didn't do it in a Saints Uniform...

Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

... nice try, but the Brooks argument got elevated to what it is today because, after the playoff win, Brooks was given credit for everything good and none of the blame for anything bad. Don't try to spin it the other way.

There are 4 very specific situations that have made this argument what it is today:

1.- Brooks getting #2 before arriving to N.O. Remember QB 2-a and QB 2-b? That started the rumblings...
2.- Neither Blake nor Delhomme getting a real chance to compete for the starting position in 2001. That "competition" was a charade. Very hard to compete for the #1 position when you only practice and play with the 2nd and 3rd teams during preseason.
3.- The viciousness of some fans towards Jake Delhomme because some other fans wanted Jake to get a shot.
4.- The virtual anointment of Brooks: if the Saints won, it was Brooks; if the Saints lost, this player dropped the ball, that one didn't block, it's the defense, it's the waterboy; and of course the "Brooks is better than Archie" spiel...

Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

Very nicely put -- I would only add the following 2 points :: not giving Jake the shot when it was apparent to eveyone but Haslett that AB was hurt. Brooks opening his mouth time and time again about how he is a top 5 QB -- how he is a great QB on a bad team --

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

If the saints had better coaching and front office management we would have won the superbowl....Haslet has no courage and no intelligence when it comes to picking coaches, draft picks, and play calling. Mueller's gunslinging got us to win that playoff game...since he left downhill.........

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

I can't argue with you about Mueller... Its basically Benson's fault for wanting to be informed on decisions and which cost Mueller his job in NO. Mueller gets credit for Horn, Deuce, Brooks just to name a few and the play off victory.

Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

.. so you do agree that Keith Mitchell was a better Saints LB than Pat Swilling, Vaughn Johnson, Sam Mills, and Rickey Jackson...

Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

But he is a Louisiana native. So you don't wanna see Louisiana natives do well unless they play for the Saints? I root for LA natives always, except when they play us. Then I hope they suck to high heaven. Outside of that though, hometown or homestate guys always get my support. Not enough good news comes out of this state as it is. good to see some local boys make good.

Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

Same here -- same thing with all LA sport teams -- rajun cajuns, LSU etc -- even though I am a Tulane grad

Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

Well, in college sports, I mainly support LSU. I root for Tulane cause I almost went there, and I used to pull for UNO in b-ball cause I did go there. But I am LSU all the way,a lthough when other teams do well fromt he state, I don't hate on them or begrudge them.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

Keith Mithcell had more talent but, no heart, no guts, no work ethic.....so it's like saying a krispy kreme donut has the potential to be better than mckensie's but never quite fits the bill....

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

Jake Delhomme threw for more yards, more TDs, a higher completion percentage, better YPA, better TD:INT ratio, and better QB rating than AB last season. It was AB's 5th with the Saints and 4th full season as a starter. It was Jake's 2nd as a starter and 2nd with the team. Jake's numbers got better from the year previous. Brooks' got worse. Jake did it with Nick Goings as the primary back for much of the year, with major injuries along the o-line and at WR, and a terrbily banged up defense, and on a bad team overall (last season). Brooks' team was mostly healthy, and the team was probably better given Carolina's injuries. Just thought you all should know. LOL

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

Well see this is how this gets blown out of proportion... its about being the Saints all-time best QB, not about being best QB out of LA... in which you have to give it to TERRY BRADSHAW.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

Here's a fun game I like to play here at BnG.net. Everyone ready? It's called....

Name That QB!!!!


In 2005, which "great" starting NFL QB finished BEHIND these others in Completion Percentage??

Josh McCown
Vinny Testaverde
Jeff Garcia
Carson Palmer
Tim Rattay
David Carr
Kurt Warner
Billy Volek
Byron Leftwich
Jake Delhomme
Jake Plummer

Here's a hint - he also finished behind these other QBs in QB Rating:
Billy Volek
Jake Delhomme
Kurt Warner
Byron Leftwich
Marc Bulger
Jake Plummer
Brian Griese
Davide Carr


If you said Aaron Brooks, you're a winner!!! Ding, ding, ding, ding!


So AB completed fewer of his passes in his 4th full season as a starter than such NFL greats as Josh McCown (is he still a starter?), Kurt Warner (lost starting job and was cut), Vinny Testaverde (see Kurt Warner), Tim Rattay (wow), Billy Volek (a backup), Jeff Garcia (seriously?), etc.

Yeah, he's a Pro Bowler alright. Man, is he good. LOL

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

. so you do agree that Keith Mitchell was a better Saints LB than Pat Swilling, Vaughn Johnson, Sam Mills, and Rickey Jackson...

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

Why is AB the best Saints QB ever -- because of how many yards he threw == I guess passing stats have not improved in recent years because of how we protect the QB from getting hit -- how the receivers have gotten a huge advantage because of the 5 yard rule -- the fact that more games are played in a year than the old days -- For example -- it used to be tough to get a thousand yards rushing -- now that there is a 16 game season you have to be a pretty bad running back to not get 1000. Does yardage mean that a guy in a 12 game season who rushes for 1300 yards isn't as good as a guy who rushes for 1500 in a 16 game season -- so Peyton is better than Unitas, Favre definitely better than Starr, culpepper better than Tarkenton etc -- they may be but I do not think just because one has thrown for more yards and TDs means anything to that discussion

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

Oh ok so you're one of those aren't you? Did you read anything I have written??? Do you pay attention to other threads???

Here is an update for you... to get you caught up. Brooks debate, hello. Secondly, comparison amoungst ones peers, how they rank say in the top 10 in categories... you compare others to there peers and tank them accordingly you see that Brooks is tied with Manning as the Saints all time QB that is how I see it. Others support the theory its about the qb getting wins... in which case its Brooks with a playoff win just to save you time on the math... that is Brooks has more play off wins than any other Saint QB put together, lol. I will give you the best QB with the best win percentage is none other than Bobby Hebert.

I am also in favor of 'its a team sport', in which case get down on the team as a whole and stop bashing Brooks.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

I've got to disagree strongly with the W/L assessment. It is a stat just like all of the others. Wins and Losses are a team stat - no single player gets credit or blame for them.

Here is a way of thinking about it.
Generally, team that was 3-13 that goes to 8-8 is a better team than a team that went from 14-2 to 8-8. Why is that? One team has gained in talent, coaching, etc., the other has lost. The teams are not in equally good position, other things equal, going into the offseason - one team has more work to do than the other to rebuild. Why is that? One team is better than the other even though their records are the same.

I agree with T-R here. Keith Mitchell is not a better LB than any member of the Dome Patrol, despite a playoff win.

However, if that win doesn't matter anymore than any other, that hold for any win. Thus, the number of games a player has played in that his team has won is not a stat that any scout, coach, or other professional football person uses to evaluate a player - because it doesn't really say anything about him as a player. That is just as true for the QB.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

I also feel to a degree that the football gods have to be on your side that year.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

Actually that was what I was trying to say in one of these posts -- I do not like stats because you can spin them in any direction you really want -- And the only stat I really care about is wins/losses -- not from an individual perspective but from a team perspective. Basically I believe that the true player cares more about getting the win than improving his stats -- I don't care if AB has 10 TDs in a game or 10 INTs -- as long as we won --

As for Euphoria's comment about AB and Archie -- only thing I said is you cannot compare the 2 -- different eras-- different teams etc -- I have my own opinion -- but fact of the matter is I do not believe it is an argument (for now at least) that can be proven one way or the other by stats -- and once again -- even though necessary and they can and do serve a purposed I do not happen to like the use of individual stats

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

..."one of those"??? "Those" what???


Unfortunately... shame on me..

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: statistics
 

4ss, my bad. I must have got confused by all the other stuff that people said.

While I agree that stats can be spun, I don't see that alone makes them not useful as a tool. Stats are an impoverished description of what happened, but they are the kind of thing that can be used to evaluate players, teams, and so on, if you don't have better sources of information (and usually we don't).