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)
- Thread starter guderian
- Start date
- Status
Tau837
Footballguy
Brooks's comments were still stupid, and this one game changes nothing about how great of a QB he is.He threw for 216 yards and 1 TD, compared to Delhomme's 307 and 2. The difference was that Brooks had a running game that supported him with 153 yards rushing and 2 rushing TDs, whereas Delhomme got only 46 yards and 0 TDs from his running game.What crow?:rotflmao: looks like there is some crow to be served. Brooks leads NO past the red hot Panthers at Car.
Johnny Ice
Footballguy
:rotflmao: looks like there is some crow to be served. Brooks leads NO past the red hot Panthers at Car.
And they are still sitting at home watching the playoffs.
8
8623
Guest
Interesting.So Brooks' team plays well and he gets the win. Delhomme's team plays not-so-well, and he puts up big stats but takes the loss.Sounds to me like the guy knew what he was talking about.And by extension, me too, since I've been saying exactly the same year all ####ing year long to you people.Brooks's comments were still stupid, and this one game changes nothing about how great of a QB he is.He threw for 216 yards and 1 TD, compared to Delhomme's 307 and 2. The difference was that Brooks had a running game that supported him with 153 yards rushing and 2 rushing TDs, whereas Delhomme got only 46 yards and 0 TDs from his running game.What crow?
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Smoking crack is very bad for your health and maintenance of your mental faculties. Please stop.Interesting.So Brooks' team plays well and he gets the win. Delhomme's team plays not-so-well, and he puts up big stats but takes the loss.Sounds to me like the guy knew what he was talking about.And by extension, me too, since I've been saying exactly the same year all ####ing year long to you people.Brooks's comments were still stupid, and this one game changes nothing about how great of a QB he is.He threw for 216 yards and 1 TD, compared to Delhomme's 307 and 2. The difference was that Brooks had a running game that supported him with 153 yards rushing and 2 rushing TDs, whereas Delhomme got only 46 yards and 0 TDs from his running game.What crow?
8
8623
Guest
Yeah, because Jake and the Panthers have never won because of their defense or because they play well as a team.When the Panthers win like that, Jake Delhomme is a great leader. But when the Saints win like that, their quarterback gets none of the credit.
Last edited:
8
8623
Guest
I'm sorry.........what exactly have I said that is untrue?Somebody here is smoking crack, but it ain't me.
valhallan
Footballguy
Not this year. As a matter of fact I believe they beat us a few weeks ago by posting 26 points in the first half. Our D clamped down this time and we won. Noticed I've said nothing of Brooks' performance. He played well, but the D won this game.
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Endorsing this myth that Brooks is a "great" quarterback. It's so laughable that even the most ardent Saints fan wouldn't support any statement even close to that. You either have a very low standard for greatness...or, you're smoking crack.I'm sorry.........what exactly have I said that is untrue?Somebody here is smoking crack, but it ain't me.
Last edited by a moderator:
8
8623
Guest
I never said he was a "great" quarterback. Please stop lying.
8
8623
Guest
And that's the way it should be. "Defense wins championships", right?My apologies for (possibly) misinterpreting your comments.
guderian
Footballguy
It always amazes me that the Pro-Brooks crowd thinks that the only relevant comparison for Brooks is Delhomme and they are always the first to utter his name. Jake is a great guy and an average QB, but that doesn't make Aaron Brooks any less inconsistent nor does it endow him with any leadership abilities. It's also good to know that I have such influence with the national media. As ISF pointed out, they took their lead from the anti-Brooks crowd (me) and ripped Brooks for his comments on NFL Countdown. It's good to know that a QB neophyte like Steve Young peruses this board and uses my comments on national TV--calling Brooks inconsistent and questioning both his comments and decision making capability. As ISF said, they merely take their cue from the loudest of the anti-Brooks crowd.:rotflmao: looks like there is some crow to be served. Brooks leads NO past the red hot Panthers at Car.
Last edited by a moderator:
8
8623
Guest
I addressed that statement a few pages back.There is no need to make this personal.
8
8623
Guest
Ummm...........you may want to check out the beginning of the thread again. That is the subject at hand, is it not?
8
8623
Guest
I'm glad there is somebody on the other side of this fence who can be reasonable.As for why the Saints can't win with defense and team play, that says more to me about the state of the organization over the last 38 years than any problems with the quarterback.We may be closer on this issue than you realize.
8
8623
Guest
You are clearly an idiot and not worth my time.
8
8623
Guest
Relative to Jake Delhomme's situation, yes.
The Saints start 4-8 with one of the worst Ds in NFL history = Brooks sucksThe Saints revamped D improves greatly, solely responsible for victories = Brooks sucksI've said many times that Brooks has never been given a chance. The D finally becomes competent, the Saints win 4 in a row, and Brooks gets zero credit. You Brooks bashers are ridiculous. The D didn't beat the Panthers, the Saints did. A great defensive effort, a great day for Deuce, and an efficient day for Brooks.
valhallan
Footballguy
The team was 4-8 with a horrible D, 4-0 with a good one. How were they not the one glaring difference between the first meeting with the Panthers and yesterday?BTW, I believe I'm the only one here who credited the D for the win and at no time did I bash Brooks.
Last edited by a moderator:
8
8623
Guest
Hell, the whole team became competent. The defense, the offensive line who finally figured out how to pass block, the backs who improved at picking up the blitz, the receivers, who suddenly became surehanded. Even the coaching staff, who simplified the schemes to play to the individual players' strengths.That was a total team effort, and that's the way it should be. I just think the average Saints fan has seen so little of this over the last few years that they can't recognize it for what it is, and as such, have to pick a scapegoat for everytime it doesn't happen.
packersfan
Footballguy
As someone who has watched Brooks since his career began, I don't think there's any question he has tremendous physical tools - more than Jake Delhomme has. But when it comes to the certain it that all great QBs possesses he just doesn't have it or hasn't shown enough of it consistently. I think Delhomme has it and I think that's one of the reasons why he clearly was the superior QB this season. And if you asked me to choose between them I'd take Delhomme without hesitation. I think the guy is real good and one of the most under-rated players in the NFL.
That said, for Brooks to go into Carolina and face a defense that had been on fire in terms of takeaways and not turn the ball over once was damn impressive - especially when you can normally count on Brooks to do at least a few goofy things a game. He deserves his props for outplaying Delhomme (who despite the gaudy stats did not play well for most of the game) and leading the Saints to the victory.
That said, for Brooks to go into Carolina and face a defense that had been on fire in terms of takeaways and not turn the ball over once was damn impressive - especially when you can normally count on Brooks to do at least a few goofy things a game. He deserves his props for outplaying Delhomme (who despite the gaudy stats did not play well for most of the game) and leading the Saints to the victory.
Last edited by a moderator:
8
8623
Guest
Except for when his offensive line decides to block. Then he's nearly flawless.It's just that simple. Give the man a couple seconds to step back, survey the defense, and make the throw, and you won't have any problems.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
It's what we call the difference between a great "practice" quarterback and a great "game" quarterback. Maybe that's where you and Brooks differ from the rest of the football universe. Of course, you're still evading the real issue: Do you stand by your defense of Brooks' statement that he's a great QB--that he didn't say anything that was untrue--or are you backing off that now?
trade you Bledsoe for him straight up
guderian
Footballguy
Watch Manning or any other decent QB when the pocket starts to break down. They sprint to one side or the other to give themselves time to set and throw. What does Brooks do? He starts back pedaling. Before you know it he is 15-20 yards behind the line of scrimmage which makes a 10 yard throw into a 25 yard throw. Add to that the fact that he hasn't learned to step into his throws and after six years is still throwing off of his back foot which causes a lack of accuracy. A lack of accuracy is manifest in a low completion percentage, and in a league where the average completion percentage is 60% Brooks has never met or exceeded that level. He is a career 56.5% QB with a best of 59.1%.
packersfan
Footballguy
Nope. That isn't the intangible I was referring to.You can still be a great QB and not have a good to great defense. The Packers' defense blows but Favre is obviously a great QB. Manning obviously has it even though the Colts' defense stinks. The Patriots' defense has been weaker this season, but Brady still has it.
The it is hard to describe or put into specifics. But it's that rare attribute that enables a quarterback to rise above whatever challenges he's being presented with and find a way to win. I think Delhomme has it for the most part (though he didn't have it this past Sunday). I don't think Brooks has it at all and that's why he'll likely never be the QB his physical skills suggest he could be.
8
8623
Guest
09:30 PM CST on Monday, January 3, 2005Jim Henderson / WWL-TV Sports DirectorAaron Brooks was mad after Sunday’s game. But I have a feeling that he’s been mad.It’s stuck in his craw that he’s compared unfavorably to Michael Vick, whom he is 0-3 against and it stuck in his craw that he was constantly compared unfavorably to Jake Delhomme, who he was 0-3 against.So he had it all bottled up inside and he really couldn’t say anything about it because of the losses – until Sunday.That’s when Brooks let loose. He had held it in and he finally had a chance to say “I told you so.”He made a bold statement during the week, threw down the gauntlet, said that he was the better quarterback and then he went out and had perhaps the best game of his career. He managed the game magnificently. He didn’t throw into coverage, didn’t make mistakes, ran when he needed to. The big thing was not making mistakes against Carolina because that’s what they’re known for, causing mistakes but not making them.He spoke loudly during the week, backed it up and then said “I told you so,” and I have no problem with that.That’s the sign of a competitor, something Saints fans have said they want to see more of in Aaron.His pride was hurt. For a certain segment of fans here he’ll never be the answer, but I think he’s grown from this. He knows you have to have a thick skin. The quarterback gets booed. Jake was hearing some boo birds Sunday in Carolina.Can Aaron Brooks take you to a Super Bowl? Well, a lot worse quarterbacks have because they’ve had a good running game and a defense.There are at least a dozen teams in the NFL that would take Brooks right now, no questions asked, as their starter – take Miami, Tennessee (assuming McNair can’t return), Baltimore, Oakland, Dallas, Washington, Tampa, Detroit, Chicago, Arizona and San Francisco. They would all love to have Aaron Brooks.He isn’t the most popular guy on the team, and calling himself a great quarterback on an inconsistent team probably didn’t help. Some teammates see him as a “me” guy.I've been critical of him in the past, but I think Brooks is growing and learning.His running is a big plus. How many sacks would most quarterbacks have had this season with the problems they had at offensive line?The single-biggest play of the year was his fourth-down scramble against Tampa. If he doesn’t get that first, the season is done.And one final thing about Brooks to consider: He’s one tough player. He is one of two quarterbacks (Jake Plummer was the other) to take every snap this year. He plays hurt and he takes some hellacious hits.I think Brooks will be back. I think once he cools down – and it might take a while – he’ll be back.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
He must be awesome in Madden.
Family Matters
Footballguy
That makes it easier to throw behind you!
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
I don't disagree with this. If he played this type of game regularly, there would be no arguing that he is a good to great QB. The fact is that he doesn't play this type of game with any regularity. Hence the criticism.
Well, to start with, he only named 11 teams. Is he counting New Orleans as the 12th? And would every one of those teams take Brooks over their other available options? Not necessarily. For example, I'm not sure Tennessee would take him over Volek, even if McNair didn't return. And San Francisco might well prefer Leinart to Brooks.More importantly, this is a perfect case of damning with faint praise. What this says, even using 12 as the number, is that he is not worse than the 20th best starting QB in the NFL. I wouldn't argue with that, and I doubt many of the anti-Brooks posters in this thread would. But saying this is a far cry from Brooks' opinion of himself. (Or ISF's opinion of him.
)Terrible D = 4-8Bad D = 8-8
Good D = 4-0
You're the guy arguing that Brooks needs to go. I show that when given a defense, he wins games. Then your laughable response is that last years D wasn't bad, yet you claim to be a Saints fan. The D last year was terrible. It played a very weak schedule, got ran on by bad teams, and destroyed by anyone with a clue. Yet Brooks, without a healthy Horn or Stallworth for much the year, has a good year with 24 TDs to 8 picks.
It was an accomplishment to go 8-8 last year with that D. Why can't you acknowledge the fact that Brooks can win with a respectable defense. No one's claiming he's Manning or Favre, but you're the guy comparing him to Rattay and McCown. So you'll excuse me if I think you're biased against the guy.
He listed sure things. There are many QBs who fit into the Brooks categoryI don't disagree with this. If he played this type of game regularly, there would be no arguing that he is a good to great QB. The fact is that he doesn't play this type of game with any regularity. Hence the criticism.Well, to start with, he only named 11 teams. Is he counting New Orleans as the 12th? And would every one of those teams take Brooks over their other available options? Not necessarily. For example, I'm not sure Tennessee would take him over Volek, even if McNair didn't return. And San Francisco might well prefer Leinart to Brooks.More importantly, this is a perfect case of damning with faint praise. What this says, even using 12 as the number, is that he is not worse than the 20th best starting QB in the NFL. I wouldn't argue with that, and I doubt many of the anti-Brooks posters in this thread would. But saying this is a far cry from Brooks' opinion of himself. (Or ISF's opinion of him.
lummerPenningtonDelhommeBledsoe(Losmam is far from a sure thing)Carr(has showed nothing as a pro)BulgerCulpepperHasselbeckLeftwichPalmerGreenGarciaNone of these players are clearly better than Brooks, while players like Brees and Roethlisberger have only had one year of success, and Eli hasn't exactly lit the world on fire.That leaves:ManningMcNabbFavre(old)Vick(underrated by people who hate ther hype)Brady(who has the best coaching staff in football, bar none)So that leaves 5 clearly better than Brooks, 2 who have 1 year of success, and a log jam that includes Brooks. Considering the terrible Ds, and the sad coaching, it's safes to say we havn't seen the best of Aaron Brooks.
guderian
Footballguy
This is the second article you've posted after throwing the media under the bus. You seem to be just fine with the media's opinion when it suits your purpose, yet anything to the contrary and it is "taking its cue from the vocal anti-Brooks crowd."Interesting that Henderson is backing the "anti-Brooks" crowd on Aaron's comments. It is also telling that he could only list 11 teams that are worse off at the QB position--that puts Brooks at #20 or so--right where he finished in passer rating.
Below is a write-up on Aaron Brooks from Mike Detillier--who is a scout and not a Journalist like Henderson. However, since his conclusion contradicts your position I am sure you will once again disparage the media's take on Aaron as biased by the anti-Brooks crowd.
Last edited by a moderator:
guderian
Footballguy
Interesting. Ignore the statistics on the D being average last year yet use statistics as the basis for your positive spin on Brooks' performance. And I'm the one that is "biased"?As I've said before I think Brooks is an "average" quarterback. He is incredibly inconsistent, however, and shows little improvement over 6 years as a starter. He has incredible physical talents, yet still throws off of his back foot, can't handle pressure and makes very poor decisions. He is a "me first" player that alienates his team mates and shows zero leadership skills. He blames fumbles on "slippery balls" and the team's home record on the crowd.
Why can't he just go prove that he is a "great QB" on the field without popping his mouth off in the media and questioning his supporting cast? It's no wonder that this team isn't behind him.
Last edited by a moderator:
guderian
Footballguy
I'm sure that Henderson appreciates you speaking for him, but if he really meant that he would have said "there are only 5 teams in the NFL that wouldn't want Brooks at QB." Instead he gives him the left handed compliment.He listed sure things. There are many QBs who fit into the Brooks category
As a fellow Saint fan, are you telling me you think last years D was average? Sure, they put up nice stats vs. Houston, Jax, Chicago, Dallas, Wash, NYG, TB X2 and Atlanta x2, but teams with a clue had there way with the Saints. Indy, Tennessee and Philly moved up and down the field at will, and I think Steve Davis ran for 300+ in his two games. And this is the best D the saints have had with Brooks.I'm not saying Brooks is great. My only beef is when people say Brooks dosn't have IT, or will NEVER win. Then I have simply pointed out that when the D improved, the Saints go 4-0. With a top 10 D, and a solid running game, Brooks can lead the Saints to the Super Bowl in my opinion.
8
8623
Guest
Jake Delhomme didn't appear to have "it" last Sunday while having his receivers suffocated in coverage and being repeatedly pounded into the turf by Howard and Grant.Just a thought...........
8
8623
Guest
As much as I agree with you, I hope you're prepared to take a whole lot of crap for it.
- Status
