Well the D looked completely different at the end of last year...

I was seeing more 1, 2, & 3 yard gains for opponents on first down....rather than 5, 10, 15 yards that we'd been seeing earlier. That's why I dont get bent out of shape when people complain about our linebackers. Those guys can play.

http://www.wwltv.com/sports/saints/s....6e94e5cb.html


From that article:

"Brooks was quoted during the week as saying that he was a great quarterback on an inconsistent team."

Again, get your quotes right. Thanks.

Edit: that link seems to require membership when trying to click on it...

So go to www.google.com and put in the words "Brooks great quarterback inconsistent team".....and it should be the first thing that comes up. Hit "cache" and you will see the article without registration.

Yes, but that article did not quote Brooks as saying that. The article said Brooks was quoted as saying that. I thought Brooks used the word average. Since this author was unwilling to quote Brooks, there is a possibility that he is simply paraphrasing and might have chosen "inconsistent" when a different word was used.

Still, isn't the point that he called himself great? The team is inconsistent and there are costly drops that magnify Brooks' erratic play, but he is the poster child for inconsistency. I think that is the point here...the assertion seems to be that the play around him is inconsistent, thus diminishing his greatness. (That's how I read it anyway.) A very odd message from a man who really can't string together any momentum from a consistency standpoint.

I've fixed a couple of AB's quotes in the past. Let me give this one a shot:

"We are an inconsistent team and we all have to work to maintain some sustained level of solid play. As a leader of this team, it is my job to push those around me and lead by turning in a good effort every Sunday. We all need to expect more of ourselves and that starts with the Quaterback"

How's that? :D

Then find a quote that states him using the word "average", and you'll get credit for it.


Anyway, back to what the other guy was saying............he claimed there wasn't much difference in whether or not Brooks said the team was "mediocre" or "inconsistent. There is a HUGE difference. As he stated, mediocre means "average" (although in most cases, it really means below average).............whereas inconsistent means "non consistent". In other words......Brooks says the team is INCONSISTENT, which they were.....but he never said they were MEDIOCRE (which would mean "not that great"). To me, referencing the team as inconsistent means that the team itself is not BAD OR AVERAGE, they just simply aren't producing on a consistent basis.

From the first (and Only) pre-season game, and based on what I saw I would tend to agree. The first team defense played outstanding against Seattle's first team offense. Our first team offense, in the running game, played adequately. The passing game was horrible. There were dropped passes, badly thrown passes, inefficient pass protection, bad QB play, and penalties.

As far as the quote goes, you find it. I was simply pointing out that the link you posted isn't conclusive as to what Brooks said.

So, let's use the Saints as an example here. They have by just about everyone's analysis been inconsistent for the past 4 years. During that time they have gone an average of 8-8. If you look up what an average of 8-8 is in the league, you'll find that it is in the middle of the pack. Thus, mediocre or average.

The lesson learned from the example is that whether you use the word inconsistent or mediocre or average, you are pretty much referring to the same thing - except that inconsistent could be worse than mediocre or average. (An average or mediocre team must finish in the middle of the league. An inconsistent team might finish 4-12 or worse or better. )

I think regardless of which word he used, he called himself great in comparison which leaves us to asume that he considered the team less than great. Since we all know he has problems with inconsistency, I find it highly ironic, if not idiotic, to call the team the same and elevating himself.

This is how I see it as well. Making the distinction between one's own greatness and the status of the rest of the team (whether bad/mediocre/avergage/inconsistent) just sucks as far as I'm concerned.

Even the most rabid Broooks apologist has to acknowledge that he's an up and down guy. There's just no way around it. If you chopped the starters in the league into 3 segments, I think Brooks is high in the second 3rd or low in the 1st third. Maybe 8-12 or so. Not Bad, not great, just pretty good with the capability of being better. There are not, at any time, more than 3 or 4 great QBs in the league.

Peyton is great, Brady is great, Favre has been great, McNabb is really close, Dante is less close, but pretty damn good. AB should be able to hang somewhere just behind Dante. That's about it....right?

Until something is found to contradict my information.............then we can assume the word used was "inconsistent". Let's not use imaginary words.

Also, an "inconsistent" team would not finish 4-12. That particular record means they consistently lost. Inconsistent is the perfect word to sum up the Saints: win, lose, win, lose, win win, lose, win, lose lose..........never any real continuity. Beating a team like Chiefs, losing to a team like the Cardinals. That is INCONSISTENCY.

As far as Aaron Brooks calling himself great.....I could really care less. In his opinion, he is great. Now, the burden of proof is on him. After he made that statement, he had a really good game against the Panthers. That is the last regular season game we've seen him play in. Let's see if he keeps it going.

... potatoe, potatto, tomatoe, tomatto... welcome to the Danno bin, Billy...

For the 2nd time today...my name is not Bill or Billy.

Also, I have no idea what a "Danno" bin is......but I'm assuming this forum has an ignore bin feature on it, like most do, and I'm assuming you are referring to that.

Assuming that my initial assumption is accurate, I could'nt help but notice that you already made THIS statement earlier in the thread:


So apparently, I went on iggy earlier in this thread.........yet miraculously, you were able to reply to directly to one of the last posts I made in this thread.

In summary, you claimed I was going on ignore once.......but after making that claim......you reply to my thread....meaning that indeed I did not go on ignore.

Can we safely say you are a liar? I think we can.

And for what it's worth.....even if I do go on ignore.....you act like that's some kind of "punishment". Gee, how will I possibly get by without having you reply to my posts with your (cough) "Intellectual insight?"


In conclusion, you are a proven liar, and I am apathetic towards your efforts to put me in your ignore bin.

Have a terrific day, champ.

But that is what the internet is for! Besides, who can take you seriously since you said you like to "Dirty Dance with the man in the monkey suit on Bourbon Street."

I'm pretty sure that was the terminology you used. :p

Peyton wins, Brady wins, favre wins, McNabb wins (Though he gets rather Brooksesque in the big games *choke*), Daunte wins...

Brooks just has good stats. And the stats are just what the losers use to make themselves feel better.