What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Brooks: "I'm a great QB" (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fourth, he didn't put down his own team in the process.
So you don't think this Saints team has needed to be called out?Come on now, if Jake Delhomme were the quarterback here and called out his team you'd be praising him for his fiery vocal leadership.
Again, it's all about HOW he handles things.If Aaron Brooks had said, "every person on this team needs to take a hard look at themselves and realize that accountability starts within..." you could credit him for stepping forward as a team leader.If Aaron Brooks had said, "this is yet another disappointing season and frankly, it's frustrating but I'll do everything in my power to improve the situation, and I hope management and my teammates are of the same mindset..." we could understand his position.But when you call yourself "great" and suggest it's your supporting talent that has kept you back, you've done EVERYTHING a QB shouldn't be doing.1) Alienate yourself from your team2) Paint yourself as a "me first" type of guy3) Display a complete lack of personal accountability4) Reinforce preexisting stereotypes about yourself
 
But since they're Saints, they are worse, correct?
Well........yeah.This has been going on for 38 years, dude.
As you can see from my sig - I understand suffering with expansion teams. But you need to see what's there, and I think that of the 3 Brooks is by far the least valuable. A quick list of teams that he'd improve their QB situation:ArizonaSFChi - maybe if no GrossmanWashington - if you don't like Ramsey to improveBaltimore - wrong type and only if you don't like Boller to improve.DallasMiamiCleveland - maybe, Garcia has been good beforeOakland - maybeYou might have others, but that's about it. He's the definite #1 new guy on 4 teams next year, and some of those will draft a "franchise" QB.
 
Three big differences between Fouts' comments and Brooks'.  First, Fouts didn't put down any other QB in saying that he himself could be a Pro Bowl QB with some help.  Second, he actually needed the help - unlike Brooks who is surrounded by Pro Bowl-quality players.  Third, he never said he was a great QB when he wasn't playing like one, just that he thought he could be one.
There is another, major difference.I think Brooks has just about had it with the fans and situation down here. People who don't live down here and see all the stuff that goes on really don't have any idea how bad it has gotten.

Call me an apologist or whatever, but Brooks hasn't deserved nearly half the criticism he has received over the last three years. And I would imagine he's just sick and damn tired of having to listen to people blame him for every single little thing that goes wrong with his team. And I wouldn't fault him for that, because I get pretty aggravated about it too. I could only imagine what it must be like to not even walk into a restaurant or a Hornets game without some jackass booing you.

And for the people who wil say it's no different in any other NFL city, you're wrong. It's WAY different here. All you have to do is look at 38 years of complete futility to know that. You can criticize Brooks for his comments (and rightly so, in this particular instance), but you have to realize all of the circumstances that have led up to something like this.

I could go into all the sordid particulars of the situation down here, but the bottom line is, playing for the New Orleans Saints has a way of bringing out the worst in people.
I disagree 100%. -35+ sell-outs for some pretty mediocre football.

-Kyle Turley worshiped as king of Endymion.

-Fans start petition campaigns to get Rickey Jackson into the hall of fame.

-Pat Swilling gets elected to public office.

-Many locals are huge fans of Peyton and Eli Manning because of their relation to Archie.

-Hoby Brenner, Tom Dempsey, Sam Mills, Horn, Michael Lewis, McAllister, I could go on and on about the players that are loved by the fans.

-Fans routinely cheer when former players like Roaf, Mills, etc. are announced in the dome and I know that Willie Roaf still lives and sends his kids to school here.

Brooks has it easy here. Just look at what Pennington is going through with a 92 QB rating or what Culpepper went through a few years ago. It's not just the local fans that criticize him but ESPN, the national media, virtually every football analyst and former players like Steve Young. Sometimes I really wonder why you consider yourself to be a Saints fan because you criticize everything about the team, city and organization except Brooks. He is in his 5th year as a starter and he is the 20th ranked QB in the league in the company of Rattay and McCown. He's never completed more than 60% of his passes and he has 75 turnovers against 76 TD passes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, it's all about HOW he handles things.If Aaron Brooks had said, "every person on this team needs to take a hard look at themselves and realize that accountability starts within..." you could credit him for stepping forward as a team leader.If Aaron Brooks had said, "this is yet another disappointing season and frankly, it's frustrating but I'll do everything in my power to improve the situation, and I hope management and my teammates are of the same mindset..." we could understand his position.But when you call yourself "great" and suggest it's your supporting talent that has kept you back, you've done EVERYTHING a QB shouldn't be doing.1) Alienate yourself from your team2) Paint yourself as a "me first" type of guy3) Display a complete lack of personal accountability4) Reinforce preexisting stereotypes about yourself
Brooks has said things similar to your "good" statements numerous times in the past. It's only the "not so good" things that get brought up.Ernie Conwell made a statement in the press at the beginning of the season about the fans turning on the team and not supporting them during the games, and it just kind of got ignored. But two weeks ago, in a newspaper interview, Brooks mentions that opposing players have often said the same exact thing to him, and guess who gets blasted for it? Not Conwell, not the other players, but............you got it. Your thoughts are all fine and good, and I understand perfectly what you're saying, but it's still an extreme double standard nonetheless.
 
It's not just the local fans that criticize him but ESPN, the national media, virtually every football analyst and former players like Steve Young.
The national media and ESPN are only taking their cue from the most vocal of Saints fans (which uncoincidentally, tend to be those who dislike Brooks). The cluelessness of the national media about the Saints is well-documented in many, many cases. It's no different in this case.I have never said he is above criticism. I don't where you are getting that from. Once again, for the millionth time, please stop attributing motivations upon me that don't exist.
 
Again, it's all about HOW he handles things.

If Aaron Brooks had said, "every person on this team needs to take a hard look at themselves and realize that accountability starts within..." you could credit him for stepping forward as a team leader.

If Aaron Brooks had said, "this is yet another disappointing season and frankly, it's frustrating but I'll do everything in my power to improve the situation, and I hope management and my teammates are of the same mindset..." we could understand his position.

But when you call yourself "great" and suggest it's your supporting talent that has kept you back, you've done EVERYTHING a QB shouldn't be doing.

1) Alienate yourself from your team

2) Paint yourself as a "me first" type of guy

3) Display a complete lack of personal accountability

4) Reinforce preexisting stereotypes about yourself
Brooks has said things similar to your "good" statements numerous times in the past. It's only the "not so good" things that get brought up.Ernie Conwell made a statement in the press at the beginning of the season about the fans turning on the team and not supporting them during the games, and it just kind of got ignored. But two weeks ago, in a newspaper interview, Brooks mentions that opposing players have often said the same exact thing to him, and guess who gets blasted for it? Not Conwell, not the other players, but............you got it.

Your thoughts are all fine and good, and I understand perfectly what you're saying, but it's still an extreme double standard nonetheless.
Completely different situations. Conwell's comments were more of the generic "it's tough when your home crowd is down on you" variety. Conwell didn't single out the local fans as anything other than typical NFL fans whereas Brooks singled out the local fans as a reason for the team's lack of success. Again, this is a quarter back who singled out the fans as a reason for the team's lack of success. But, what else can you expect from a guy that blamed his fumbling problems on slippery balls as if everyone else in the NFL was playing with the non-slippery balls.
 
Brooks has it easy here.
Racial hate mail, death threats, booing in public places, and you think he has it easy?I guaran-damn-tee you Jets fans treat Chad Pennington, even with his problems, a thousand times better than many Saints fans treat Brooks.

 
It's not just the local fans that criticize him but ESPN, the national media, virtually every football analyst and former players like Steve Young.
The national media and ESPN are only taking their cue from the most vocal of Saints fans (which uncoincidentally, tend to be those who dislike Brooks). The cluelessness of the national media about the Saints is well-documented in many, many cases. It's no different in this case.
Funny, I thought it was the inconsistent play, the backwards passes, the no look INTs...
 
Completely different situations. Conwell's comments were more of the generic "it's tough when your home crowd is down on you" variety. Conwell didn't single out the local fans as anything other than typical NFL fans whereas Brooks singled out the local fans as a reason for the team's lack of success. Again, this is a quarter back who singled out the fans as a reason for the team's lack of success. But, what else can you expect from a guy that blamed his fumbling problems on slippery balls as if everyone else in the NFL was playing with the non-slippery balls.
No, they're not completely different situations. They're the exact same situation, and if you had actually heard what Conwell said (it's obvious from your statements that you didn't) you would know better.

Ummm.........if you hadn't heard, both Jake Delhomme and Marc Bulger blamed some of their fumbles on slippery balls last year.

Like I said, double standard.

 
Funny, I thought it was the inconsistent play, the backwards passes, the no look INTs...
Brooks' play is no more inconsistent than any other quarterback would be in the same situation.I don't see Matt Hasselbeck getting crucified by anybody.
 
Again, it's all about HOW he handles things.If Aaron Brooks had said, "every person on this team needs to take a hard look at themselves and realize that accountability starts within..." you could credit him for stepping forward as a team leader.If Aaron Brooks had said, "this is yet another disappointing season and frankly, it's frustrating but I'll do everything in my power to improve the situation, and I hope management and my teammates are of the same mindset..." we could understand his position.But when you call yourself "great" and suggest it's your supporting talent that has kept you back, you've done EVERYTHING a QB shouldn't be doing.1) Alienate yourself from your team2) Paint yourself as a "me first" type of guy3) Display a complete lack of personal accountability4) Reinforce preexisting stereotypes about yourself
Brooks has said things similar to your "good" statements numerous times in the past. It's only the "not so good" things that get brought up.Ernie Conwell made a statement in the press at the beginning of the season about the fans turning on the team and not supporting them during the games, and it just kind of got ignored. But two weeks ago, in a newspaper interview, Brooks mentions that opposing players have often said the same exact thing to him, and guess who gets blasted for it? Not Conwell, not the other players, but............you got it. Your thoughts are all fine and good, and I understand perfectly what you're saying, but it's still an extreme double standard nonetheless.
Hey ISF,While I don't disagree that there's a double standard, that's part and parcel of being a QB. The QB and head coach are the two most visible faces of the franchise, as I mentioned in our prior discussions re: Brooks...being a great QB is as much about being able to handle the double standard and the unparalleled accountability and responsibility for everything you do on and off the field as anything.Again, I ask you to show me ONE great QB who ever called himself that. It just doesn't happen.Brooks MAY flourish in another environment, and I agree with you it's probably better for all parties concerned that he move on at this point, but I must admit that I struggle to understand why you continually defend him in the face of his actions and statements.
 
http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8050947

The New Orleans Saints have the longest winning streak in the NFC at three games and they're a victory away from a potential playoff berth. Suddenly, those calling for coach Jim Haslett's head have quieted down.

So how has it happened? How have the Saints gone for a 4-8 team going nowhere to a potential wild-card team?

Here are a couple of reasons:

Running back Deuce McAllister is finally healthy.

The cornerback play from Mike McKenzie and Fakhir Brown has improved the past month, allowing for more man coverage.

The defensive ends have attacked the quarterback.

And, most important, quarterback Aaron Brooks is playing better.

The last one is vital and will be key when the Saints go to Carolina to play the Panthers on Sunday in what could be a play-in game to the playoffs. With both teams at 7-8, the winner has a real good chance of making the postseason. If the Rams lose to the Jets, the winner is in. If the Rams win and the Seahawks and Vikings win, the winner is still in.

For Brooks, it's much more than just a chance to shut up many of his critics in New Orleans. His erratic play at times has made him a Big Easy Target. Fans cringed last February when Jake Delhomme, a Louisiana native who backed up Brooks before signing with the Panthers in 2003, led Carolina to the Super Bowl.

Brooks clearly outplayed Delhomme when the two were on the same team, but that never stopped the constant call for the native son.

"Of course, it bothered Aaron," said one Saints official. "How could it not?"

 
Funny, I thought it was the inconsistent play, the backwards passes, the no look INTs...
Brooks' play is no more inconsistent than any other quarterback would be in the same situation.I don't see Matt Hasselbeck getting crucified by anybody.
Matt Hasselbeck isn't blaming his teammates for the team's subpar performance this year. He's also not going around telling everyone he's great, laughing as he walks off the field after a key turnover went against him, or being sent to leadership training school by the team management.
 
but I must admit that I struggle to understand why you continually defend him in the face of his actions and statements.
Just as I struggle to understand why certain people crucify him for every little thing.
 
Funny, I thought it was the inconsistent play, the backwards passes, the no look INTs...
Brooks' play is no more inconsistent than any other quarterback would be in the same situation.I don't see Matt Hasselbeck getting crucified by anybody.
I think plenty people are complaining about "hasselsuck"...
 
Matt Hasselbeck isn't blaming his teammates for the team's subpar performance this year. He's also not going around telling everyone he's great, laughing as he walks off the field after a key turnover went against him, or being sent to leadership training school by the team management.
*sigh*Brooks isn't blaming his teammates, he is saying that his team has struggled and been inconsistent.He is not also "going around telling everyone he is great". It was one newspaper article, and I'm pretty sure by "great" he doesn't mean Johnny Unitas epic-great. More like "This is a great hot dog" or "That was a great Seinfeld episode".I haven't seen him smile after a turnover in a year and a half. And even if he was, if you actually think he was happy about turning the ball over you need your head checked.The leadership seminar struck me as a PR move to please the idiotic fans more than anything. He didn't need a leadership seminar, he needed arm surgery.
 
Talk about double standards.

The cluelessness of the national media about the Saints is well-documented in many, many cases.
You're the one so willing to invoke the national media in your claims, I thought I'd show you some national media with an opposing viewpoint.FWIW, I think CBS Sportsline sucks, but they're awesome compared to ESPN.
 
Completely different situations.  Conwell's comments were more of the generic "it's tough when your home crowd is down on you" variety.  Conwell didn't single out the local fans as anything other than typical NFL fans whereas Brooks singled out the local fans as a reason for the team's lack of success.  Again, this is a quarter back who singled out the fans as a reason for the team's lack of success.  But, what else can you expect from a guy that blamed his fumbling problems on slippery balls as if everyone else in the NFL was playing with the non-slippery balls.
No, they're not completely different situations. They're the exact same situation, and if you had actually heard what Conwell said (it's obvious from your statements that you didn't) you would know better.

Ummm.........if you hadn't heard, both Jake Delhomme and Marc Bulger blamed some of their fumbles on slippery balls last year.

Like I said, double standard.
I heard Conwell's comments and he is always very diplomatic and well spoken. I'd ask you to find a link, but I am still waiting for the "Horn runs the wrong routes 40% of the time" link.Bulger had 1 fumble last year and none this year. :confused:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I heard Conwell's comments and he is always very diplomatic and well spoken. I'd ask you to find a link, but I am still waiting for the "Horn runs the wrong routes 40% of the time link."Bulger had 1 fumble last year and none this year. :confused:
Once again, I did not say that Horn ran the wrong route 40% of the time, I said that I had read somewhere that he did, and I did find a link that went at least part of the way towards confirming that.Cut it out with the asinine bullcrap.
 
I heard Conwell's comments and he is always very diplomatic and well spoken.  I'd ask you to find a link, but I am still waiting for the "Horn runs the wrong routes 40% of the time link."Bulger had 1 fumble last year and none this year.  :confused:
Once again, I did not say that Horn ran the wrong route 40% of the time, I said that I had read somewhere that he did, and I did find a link that went at least part of the way towards confirming that.Cut it out with the asinine bullcrap.
Where's the link? You are talking about a pro bowl wide receiver. I think that assertion requires justification.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the other thread.If you're so willing to call me out for something in another thread, you should at least have that thread in front of you.I can't hold your hand dude.

 
I heard Conwell's comments and he is always very diplomatic and well spoken.
Translated: "I don't have an agenda against Ernie Conwell".No matter how you spin, they both said THE EXACT SAME ####ING THING.
 
I think plenty people are complaining about "hasselsuck"...
Not nearly in the same way they do Brooks, though.
You're right - sort of.I don't have anything nearly as clever for Brooks as:HasselPICKHasselSUCKHasselBUSTHasselDRECK - my personal favorite.I'm not going to racially bash 'Dreck, but I wouldn't do it with Brooks either. Of course, I wouldn't begin to try & defend him.I will offer you Koren Robinson for Horn or another WR if you like, though. That might help Brooks - because at least there would be a WR that was really easy to blame.
 
Funny, I thought it was the inconsistent play, the backwards passes, the no look INTs...
Funny, you could easily be talking about Jake Delhomme. I have never seen a QB force more throws, and toss up more lame ducks than Jake, yet he's an efficient QB with "it." The one year when the Saints could muster an almost mediocre defense, Brooks only threw 8 INTs. But what do people focus on, fumbles. Jake fumbled more than Brooks last year, and not a single mention anywhere. Now the Saints D looks decent, and the Saints win 3 in a row. But apparently this is in spite of Brooks. I'm very confident that if you give Brooks a good D, he can take a team to a Super Bowl. I think Brooks' biggest problem is that he's been miscast as a gunslinger, when he's better suited for a run first offense. Can someone explain how a team with the #32 D, no 1000 yard rusher, and a presumed terrible QB are around .500?
 
I heard Conwell's comments and he is always very diplomatic and well spoken.
Translated: "I don't have an agenda against Ernie Conwell".No matter how you spin, they both said THE EXACT SAME ####ING THING.
It is just impossible to debate these things with you since you always interject non-verifiable third-pary "information" into the discussion. I can't say that I've read and heard everything that Conwell has said since he has been a Saint so there is no reason for me to compare his comments to Brooks' when you are the only available source for these "other comments".
 
Of course, I wouldn't begin to try & defend him.
Why not?It's not as if Hasselbeck gets a lot of support from his receivers either. As a matter of fact, it's probably not farfetched at all to say that the main reason Hasselbeck's season went downhill was because of his receivers' ineptitude.I guess I'm just the kind of person who sees the whole football team instead of just the individual players. I'm not so much a big fantasy football player as I am an actual football fan.
 
It is just impossible to debate these things with you since you always interject non-verifiable third-pary "information" into the discussion. I can't say that I've read and heard everything that Conwell has said since he has been a Saint so there is no reason for me to compare his comments to Brooks' when you are the only available source for these "other comments".
The comments were in the freaking newspaper.So now the newspaper is nonverifiable third-party "information"?
 
It is just impossible to debate these things with you since you always interject non-verifiable third-pary "information" into the discussion. I can't say that I've read and heard everything that Conwell has said since he has been a Saint so there is no reason for me to compare his comments to Brooks' when you are the only available source for these "other comments".
The comments were in the freaking newspaper.So now the newspaper is nonverifiable third-party "information"?
I went to the paper and searched for Conwell and no go...I went to a Saints web site and searched under all the articles from the regional newspapers and no go...and lastly I searched on the message board and not a whiff of it. I'd ask you for a link, but...
 
I guess I'm just the kind of person who sees the whole football team instead of just the individual players. I'm not so much a big fantasy football player as I am an actual football fan.
:rolleyes: I guess I just look at his fantasy stats. I guess I've been a long-time Saints season ticket holder so that I can scout for my fantasy team. I can admit fault with every facet of the team and organization, but I have yet to hear you ever utter a negative word or criticism of Brooks. Even his most ardent supporters would admit that the backwards passes, no look INTs, running out of bounds when the are trying to run out the clock, calling out his teammates while proclaiming himself as "great" aren't his best moments, but you always deflect the criticism to other aspects of the team.
 
I'm sure I can't convince ISF where others have failed so I won't bother trying.To me Brooks is clearly a better athlete than Delhomme, but Delhomme strikes me as a better QB and teammate. And from an owner's perspective, probably a better employee, since he doesn't generate this type of negative publicity.Statistically, Delhomme has been better than Brooks, though by a small margin, something like a career 83 QB rating to Brooks' 81. However, Brooks has played enough that he has likely played as well as he is going to. Delhomme is just about to complete his second season as a starter, so it is reasonable to think he can still improve from here.Just look at the difference between last season, his first as a starter, and this season. Last season, Delhomme's QB rating was ~80. This season, it is ~88. Nice improvement, particularly given the loss of Steve Smith and the entire running game.And aside from all that, if I had to choose one of them to lead my team in the two minute drill in a tight game, or just to start a big game, there is no doubt I would choose Delhomme.

 
I can admit fault with every facet of the team and organization, but I have yet to hear you ever utter a negative word or criticism of Brooks.
That's because you only see what you want to see........and you just want somebody to fight with.I have offered somewhat less than glowing opinions about Brooks' play in the past. Hell, I used to hate him almost as much as you do.
 
I'm sure I can't convince ISF where others have failed so I won't bother trying.
:rolleyes: Sorry for being such a misguided fool. The Saints are a GREAT organization, with a GREAT coaching staff, a GREAT defense, a GREAT offensive line, and GREAT ownership. As a matter of fact, Brooks is the only thing holding the team back.:headinthesand:As I have said before on this board at least a thousand times, I am not even that big a fan of Brooks, and I actually do wish a change would be made because I am just so freaking sick of this issue.I just think that he has been treated so badly, and for no real good reason in most cases. I leave the Superdome most Sunday afternoons disgusted and ashamed of many of my fellow fans. You can call me an apologist, or whatever you want. But you're not here, and you don't see what goes on. Nobody deserves to be treated that way.
 
Last edited:
And aside from all that, if I had to choose one of them to lead my team in the two minute drill in a tight game, or just to start a big game, there is no doubt I would choose Delhomme.
... in 4.5 seasons Brooks has managed 16 fourth quarter comebacks.
 
And aside from all that, if I had to choose one of them to lead my team in the two minute drill in a tight game, or just to start a big game, there is no doubt I would choose Delhomme.
... in 4.5 seasons Brooks has managed 16 fourth quarter comebacks.
Shhh.........don't tell anybody. Wouldn't want anybody to think the guy has ever done anything right, they might actually be forced to think.
 
And aside from all that, if I had to choose one of them to lead my team in the two minute drill in a tight game, or just to start a big game, there is no doubt I would choose Delhomme.
... in 4.5 seasons Brooks has managed 16 fourth quarter comebacks.
Shhh.........don't tell anybody. Wouldn't want anybody to think the guy has ever done anything right, they might actually be forced to think.
I think Jake has done that in the last two years. :ph34r:
 
Brooks is neither a great QB, nor a terrible one. But those comments stink. He needs to show better judgement than that. The team can win w/ Brooks, but not if he continually gets on their bad side.

 
I think Jake has done that in the last two years. :ph34r:
Jake has nine. :nerd:
OK, so Jake has 9 in 32 career starts (I'm assuming your numbers are counting only regular season games), while Brooks has 16 in 68 career starts. Jake's ratio is better.That said, I don't put a lot of stock in that, since this is somewhat situational. In other words, all QBs don't get the same number of opportunities to make 4th quarter comebacks. Also, if a QB's team kicks a FG to go ahead 5 seconds into the 4th quarter and neither team scores again, it's a 4th quarter comeback. That's not what I was getting at.With the game on the line, tied or trailing by one score or less, I'd prefer Delhomme over Brooks to QB my team. Alternatively, if my team has a must win game, I would prefer Delhomme over Brooks to be my QB for that game. I think both of these criteria better exhibit the perception of a QB's overall capabilities than their number of 4th quarter comebacks, and that's what I was getting at.
 
I can admit fault with every facet of the team and organization, but I have yet to hear you ever utter a negative word or criticism of Brooks.
........and you just want somebody to fight with.
You were the one that dove into an anti-Brooks thread with both guns blazing.
 
And aside from all that, if I had to choose one of them to lead my team in the two minute drill in a tight game, or just to start a big game, there is no doubt I would choose Delhomme.
... in 4.5 seasons Brooks has managed 16 fourth quarter comebacks.
Shhh.........don't tell anybody. Wouldn't want anybody to think the guy has ever done anything right, they might actually be forced to think.
Shhh...Aaron Brooks is a great quarterback. He said so, himself. It is interesting to consider, though, that a lot of QBs who throw only 56 out of 100 passes complete, with many additional passes directed at the opposing teams, have a lot of opportunities for comebacks. Just ask Jake Plummer (26 4thQ/OT wins). Besides, as ISF would have you believe, it isn't the player--it's the team.
I guess I'm just the kind of person who sees the whole football team instead of just the individual players
Translation:
I'm a Saints homer and will play both sides of the fence in defense of Aaron Brooks, the great NFL quarterback.
What a joke. :excited:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And aside from all that, if I had to choose one of them to lead my team in the two minute drill in a tight game, or just to start a big game, there is no doubt I would choose Delhomme.
... in 4.5 seasons Brooks has managed 16 fourth quarter comebacks.
Shhh.........don't tell anybody. Wouldn't want anybody to think the guy has ever done anything right, they might actually be forced to think.
Funny, if i pointed out that Brooks gave up a 4th quarter lead 16 times you'd point out that the water boy brought out the wrong water and threw off Brooks' delicate chemical balance. Brooks has 34 career victories in 68 games. I can't validate that statistic, but it is correct than it implies that the Saints have been down in the fourth quarter in 50 of his 68 career starts--that is horrendous consistency.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And aside from all that, if I had to choose one of them to lead my team in the two minute drill in a tight game, or just to start a big game, there is no doubt I would choose Delhomme.
... in 4.5 seasons Brooks has managed 16 fourth quarter comebacks.
Shhh.........don't tell anybody. Wouldn't want anybody to think the guy has ever done anything right, they might actually be forced to think.
Shhh...Aaron Brooks is a great quarterback. He said so, himself. It is interesting to consider, though, that a lot of QBs who throw only 56 out of 100 passes complete, with many additional passes directed at the opposing teams, have a lot of opportunities for comebacks. Just ask Jake Plummer (26 4thQ/OT wins). Besides, as ISF would have you believe, it isn't the player--it's the team.
I guess I'm just the kind of person who sees the whole football team instead of just the individual players
Translation:
I'm a Saints homer and will play both sides of the fence in defense of Aaron Brooks, the great NFL quarterback.
What a joke. :excited:
To be fair, ISF has been pretty consistent. It would seem his point is that Brooks shouldn't be held accountable in the manner we try to portray because the entire organization has systemic issues that start at the ownership, go through the GM and coaches, and pervade the locker room.While I have no trouble accepting that the Saints are a troubled organization, I just disagree with the premise that a QB isn't held to a higher standard. Is it FAIR? Probably not but that's ALWAYS been the name of the game. There's a reason the QB is the glamour position. He's the face of the franchise, he HAS to be a guy the team rallies around, he HAS to be the guy to set the example on and off the field, he HAS to be the guy who commands the huddle, and he HAS to be prepared to be held to a higher standard than the other 52 players if he wants to be regarded as a great one.
 
I think Jake has done that in the last two years.  :ph34r:
Jake has nine. :nerd:
OK, so Jake has 9 in 32 career starts (I'm assuming your numbers are counting only regular season games), while Brooks has 16 in 68 career starts. Jake's ratio is better.That said, I don't put a lot of stock in that, since this is somewhat situational. In other words, all QBs don't get the same number of opportunities to make 4th quarter comebacks. Also, if a QB's team kicks a FG to go ahead 5 seconds into the 4th quarter and neither team scores again, it's a 4th quarter comeback. That's not what I was getting at.

With the game on the line, tied or trailing by one score or less, I'd prefer Delhomme over Brooks to QB my team. Alternatively, if my team has a must win game, I would prefer Delhomme over Brooks to be my QB for that game. I think both of these criteria better exhibit the perception of a QB's overall capabilities than their number of 4th quarter comebacks, and that's what I was getting at.
Jake is an OK quarterback, but it is always the pro-Brooks guys that start the comparisons. Brooks can't be compared to the top 10-15 QBs in the leauge so the best argument they can make is to compare Brooks' strengths to Delhomme's weaknesses. This is a team that was rolling to a 7-4 record with Jeff Blake as the QB and it's 34-34 since then.
 
And aside from all that, if I had to choose one of them to lead my team in the two minute drill in a tight game, or just to start a big game, there is no doubt I would choose Delhomme.
... in 4.5 seasons Brooks has managed 16 fourth quarter comebacks.
Shhh.........don't tell anybody. Wouldn't want anybody to think the guy has ever done anything right, they might actually be forced to think.
Shhh...Aaron Brooks is a great quarterback. He said so, himself. It is interesting to consider, though, that a lot of QBs who throw only 56 out of 100 passes complete, with many additional passes directed at the opposing teams, have a lot of opportunities for comebacks. Just ask Jake Plummer (26 4thQ/OT wins). Besides, as ISF would have you believe, it isn't the player--it's the team.
I guess I'm just the kind of person who sees the whole football team instead of just the individual players
Translation:
I'm a Saints homer and will play both sides of the fence in defense of Aaron Brooks, the great NFL quarterback.
What a joke. :excited:
To be fair, ISF has been pretty consistent. It would seem his point is that Brooks shouldn't be held accountable in the manner we try to portray because the entire organization has systemic issues that start at the ownership, go through the GM and coaches, and pervade the locker room.While I have no trouble accepting that the Saints are a troubled organization, I just disagree with the premise that a QB isn't held to a higher standard. Is it FAIR? Probably not but that's ALWAYS been the name of the game. There's a reason the QB is the glamour position. He's the face of the franchise, he HAS to be a guy the team rallies around, he HAS to be the guy to set the example on and off the field, he HAS to be the guy who commands the huddle, and he HAS to be prepared to be held to a higher standard than the other 52 players if he wants to be regarded as a great one.
If the QB is to be held to a higher standard--which he should be, I agree--then how can anyone defend Brooks' latest comments to the media, as ISF has?
Brooks said nothing that wasn't the truth. Probably not a good idea to phrase it the way he did, but not a single thing said is a misrepresentation of the truth.
To ISF, there was nothing wrong with Brooks' comments other than it was politically insensitive. To hear Brooks tell it, he (Brooks) is a great QB and the rest of his team has been inconsistent. Factually, this is so off-base, it makes me suspicious that Brooks is smoking crack cocaine. But, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and simply reason that he is an idiot and has a vastly over-inflated perception of himself. And, to diminish Delhomme the way he did, on the eve of a huge game against that QB and team that will determine whether they make the playoffs or not, is simply irresponsible--if not flat out dumb.Brooks has a 2-cent head when it's all said and done. He makes laughable decisions on the field, he makes absurd comments to the media that are not indicative of the leadership and higher standard most of his peers at his position uphold, let alone the "great" ones.
 
Funny, I thought it was the inconsistent play, the backwards passes, the no look INTs...
Brooks' play is no more inconsistent than any other quarterback would be in the same situation.I don't see Matt Hasselbeck getting crucified by anybody.
Go to the Seahawk's newsgroups. Hass, though, has never made excuses for inconsistent play even when there's a very strong case for having the worst dropsie WRs for the last 2 years. Not once has he ever blamed anyone but himself for poor play, even when his QB rating is ### due to 7 or 8 easy drops in a game. Their attitudes and demeanor about their situations couldn't be more different. It's one thing to play poorly, it happens, it's another to play poorly and blame everyone and everything else but yourself. I mean, the FANS? Slippery balls? Poor Aaron, no one understands it when he thinks an OL 15 yrds behind the line of scrimmage is a viable option. That one was DEFINITELY the fans fault. The one in Denver was a slippery ball.
 
A tangential but interesting story . . .In Dan Fouts's fourth or fifth season, he told the media that he believed he was a Pro Bowl-quality quarterback who just needed some talent around him. He was roundly laughed at, since his career was pretty mediocre up to that point. The Chargers stunk, and Fouts looked like nothing special.A year or two later, he made his first of many Pro Bowl appearances.
Wow, I never realized this.Through Fouts' first five seasons he threw for a total of 7600 yards, 34 TDs, 57 int.Through his next 10 he averaged 3500, 22/19.In four years as a starter Aaron Brooks has averaged 3600, 24/15Therefore, Aaron Brooks > Dan FoutsAaron Brooks sucks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I pray that Aaron Brooks is not the hot-button topic this offseason.It's pretty much all on Haslett. And if they continue his tenure next year, you'll have more of the same.Brooks aint horrible - but he sure as heck aint helping his case with some of the comments he's made.Silence speaks huge volumes with Deuce - I love that guy.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top