Aaron Brooks was the best QB in our franchise history prior to Brees' arrival. I have never understood the hate fans give him.

Prior to Brooks, the best statistical season we had from a QB was Jim Everett's 1995 season. It's a shame we didn't have Everett back in the Dome Patrol days, cause we most likely would've won some playoff games and may have even reached a SB. Bobby Hebert was not a good quarterback and he had some of his worst career games in the playoffs. For some reason he has always gotten a pass for this, but if you're bored, go pull the stats and re-watch the 1991 and 1992 playoff losses. Hebert was the Blake Bortles of playoff QBs back in those seasons when the Dome Patrol was at their peak and he was the ultimate weakness that held those teams back. There is a reason we were desperate enough to get completely robbed trading with Dallas to acquire Steve Walsh who turned out to be a bust.

We all love Archie and he is a great 'what could've been' player in NFL history, but there was no light at the end of the tunnel for what I call your dad or grandfather's Saints. Archie is also heavily debated in stat communities because the Saints shockingly became worse with him starting at QB. The argument there is that a good QB can elevate a bad team and make them win a few games they should lose. That didn't happen with Archie starting, and this was a trend that sadly followed him through his career. On the flip side in defense of Archie, you can make the case that he was put behind horrible o-lines that let him get mauled in his first two seasons before he had any chance to really develop.

Everyone forgets that we were actually leading in the division back in 2002 and we had the tie breaker over Tampa Bay thanks to sweeping them. Brooks had his best game of the year carving up the Tampa defense, and then our season was completely derailed when he got injured and Haslett kept him out there with a messed up shoulder.

The Haslett era Saints were a consistent mediocre team that was always in the race for the playoffs, but couldn't ever get over the hump. Brooks was not to blame for a lot of their problems.

I would still rather have Aaron Brooks in 2003 than Jake Delhomme. The stats speak for themselves and Brooks outperformed Delhomme all year. The hype for Delhomme was because Carolina was a flukey team squeaking out nailbiter wins all year long. Over half of their wins all year, including playoffs were by a touchdown or less, including 4 OT wins. In the SB vs New England, they were set to get blown out until the Patriots secondary faced injuries and that was when Delhomme lit them up with the bomb passes.

...We all love Archie and he is a great 'what could've been' player in NFL history, but there was no light at the end of the tunnel for what I call your dad or grandfather's Saints. Archie is also heavily debated in stat communities because the Saints shockingly became worse with him starting at QB. The argument there is that a good QB can elevate a bad team and make them win a few games they should lose. That didn't happen with Archie starting, and this was a trend that sadly followed him through his career. On the flip side in defense of Archie, you can make the case that he was put behind horrible o-lines that let him get mauled in his first two seasons before he had any chance to really develop...