OK...he lost 2 fumbles in the entire year of 2004....

Did both occur in the red zone?

He must have thrown a lot of red-zone Interceptions LAST YEAR to lead the league LAST YEAR in total red-zone turnovers, given only 2 lost fumbles (which may, or may not, have occured in the red zone).

A link from you would be most helpful....

I am sure a link would be most helpful, and were you here 6-8 months ago, I provided one repeatedly. As it stands now, since it is 6-8 months later, I have no idea where to find it. I'll give you a search area though. ESPN did their own QB ranking week 16 of the reg season, and as ESPN always does, there's a write up before they give you the numbers. In that write up, it stated Aaron Brooks led the league in red zone INTs. Peyton Manning was second in that number, but of course he threw 49 Tds so I think he probably would get a little more slack. So if you look back on this site to the Brooks debates from around week 16 of the reg season, I am sure you can find it. Happy hunting. :D

Also, one of the lost fumbles DEFINITELY occured in the red zone. Arizona, week four. That's a fact. So yes LAST YEAR AB led the league in red zone turnovers LAST YEAR. Sorry to burst your bubble. I am sure he won't repeat that feat this year. He seems to go from one dilemma to the next. double digit INTs in 2001 and 2002 and fumbles. Only 8 INTs in 2003 but 14 lost fumbles. Only 2 lost fumbles in 2004, but 16 INTs, and double digit total fumbles, he just learned how to recover them better, along with being the league leader in red zone turnovers. I wonder what new and exciting way he will stand out this year. :roll:

leads the league in safeties allowed? That would be a feat.

hahaha. Now THAT would be funny, but I am sure that the offensive line would just get the blame. Or maybe Brooks was afraid to throw cause his receivers dropped so many balls(even though they were nowhere near the league leaders, which was Jacksonville, and Leftwich still completed over 60% of his passes) so he just laid down in the endzone. Too funny.

So if 1 fumble occured in the Red Zone....do you remember how many INTs occured there? You said earlier he was an "equal opportunist" when it came to turning the ball over in the red zone. If 1 fumble occured, then that means 1, 2, or no more than 3 INTs should have occured in the red zone. Thanks in advance for your help.

I've never seen anything in past history that would indicate Aaron Brooks would lay down in end zone. If you'd said "stepped on the out of bounds line in back of the end zone trying to escape a blitz", then I could go with that, perhaps..

By the way, what exactly would be funny about it? Do you enjoy seeing the Saints lose?

According to the guys on ESPN last night, the Jags lead the league in dropped passes last season. The team dropped 13% of its passes. Byron Leftwich had an 82.5 QB Rating. AB had a 79.5.

:awe:

I guess that dispells the WR excuse as the reason AB isn't a top 10 QB... unless of course you believe Leftwich to be a top 10 QB too. Must be all the line's fault. And Deuce's fault. And the coaches' faults. And the defense's fault. Don't worry, those excuses are still intact.

Oh boy here we go :duel:

Wow, welcome Captain Literal. If you are gonna hang on my every word as if it's the gospel, let me say first, I am flattered, but second, it's annoying. So what if I said he was an equal opportunity red zone turneroverer? Does it matter? HE led the league in red zone turnovers. Period. And the INT number was more towards 5 or more, cause Peyton had 4. Does that somehow justify your questioning of the stat cause I joked he was an equal opportunity turnover machine in the red zone, when in reality he had more INTs than fumbles? Whatever justifies your blind faith I guess. :roll:

Why would I enjoy seeing the team I love lose? I think the mediocre QB we have is part of the reason, and I don't think we can win with him. The more he goofs up, the sooner he is gone. The ends justifies the means to me.

What was this thread about again?

I think we should make it about you. LOL