I hear this alot "Brees is better than A.Brooks" (1 Viewer)

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

I would think A.Brooks is a better QB than Brees. Brees may be a better game manager but his skills arent in Brooks skill range. May have better IQ (smarts) but with a target like GATES and LT it shouldnt take a rocket scientist to know who to get the ball too.

I have A.Brooks on 1 of my dynasty teams and he has been serviceable FF qb although he doesnt put up great FF numbers. Although i will say ive never liked the talent he had with the saints. Or the coaching for the record.

As far as Brees, he was one of my "dont touch" Guys this year in dynasty drafts...that bum shoulder bothers me as well as his contract, with the way the set it up. He could easily be let go for nothing IIRC.

A.Brooks now have R.MOSS and the other Raiders to work with now, L.Jordan and Duece both can catch balls out of the backfield so nothing new there but I like his wr's alot more where he's at. He has a Gun and can get Moss the ball....and he was alwasy good for stealing a few goal-line td's here and there. And although he is older, i would prefer him easily in a dynasty league.

For one you can get him way way later....which allows you to grab you a younger future stud if you wish before you pick him (ie M.Lienart)

I like his team more.

He should be the man for a few years atleast.

Whats yall views on these 2 qb's. Brees/Brooks??

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

I would think A.Brooks is a better QB than Brees. Brees may be a better game manager but his skills arent in Brooks skill range. May have better IQ (smarts) but with a target like GATES and LT it shouldnt take a rocket scientist to know who to get the ball too.

I have A.Brooks on 1 of my dynasty teams and he has been serviceable FF qb although he doesnt put up great FF numbers. Although i will say ive never liked the talent he had with the saints. Or the coaching for the record.

As far as Brees, he was one of my "dont touch" Guys this year in dynasty drafts...that bum shoulder bothers me as well as his contract, with the way the set it up. He could easily be let go for nothing IIRC.

A.Brooks now have R.MOSS and the other Raiders to work with now, L.Jordan and Duece both can catch balls out of the backfield so nothing new there but I like his wr's alot more where he's at. He has a Gun and can get Moss the ball....and he was alwasy good for stealing a few goal-line td's here and there. And although he is older, i would prefer him easily in a dynasty league.

For one you can get him way way later....which allows you to grab you a younger future stud if you wish before you pick him (ie M.Lienart)

I like his team more.

He should be the man for a few years atleast.

Whats yall views on these 2 qb's. Brees/Brooks??

I can't imagine very many circumstances where either of these guys are on my team(s) next year.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Brees > Brooks

You mentioned that "Brees may be a better game manager but his skills arent in Brooks skill range." But reading defenses and decision-making are a big part of a QBs skillset. Brooks has made some very poor decisisions with the ball over his career.

As for physical gifts, Kerry Collins has a stronger arm than Tom Brady. But no one would rate Collins over Brady.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Brees > Brooks

You mentioned that "Brees may be a better game manager but his skills arent in Brooks skill range." But reading defenses and decision-making are a big part of a QBs skillset. Brooks has made some very poor decisisions with the ball over his career.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree.

This is a no brainer.

Brooks makes mistake after mistake

mentally. Brees is head and shoulders the

better QB.

Brooks has him on athleticism, but that's about it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

From 2003-2005, Drew Brees has averaged 2.95 INTs/100 attempts.

From 2003-2005, Aaron Brooks has averaged 2.74 INTs/100 attempts.

 

[Blackjacks]

From 2003-2005, Drew Brees has averaged 2.95 INTs/100 attempts.

From 2003-2005, Aaron Brooks has averaged 2.74 INTs/100 attempts.

good find Brees had one very good year, one avg. year and one horrible year. Brees had taken his team to the playoffs only once in those three years. Brooks has taken his team to the playoffs one time in four years with lesser talent and one game away in his next year. While I like Brees on the field alot more I also have to look at the coaching he's had compared to Brooks. I will never be a Brooks fan after he was caught on film laughing on a Sun. night game against Indy while they were getting destroyed but I will say the guy is talented. Let's see how he does this year with a very good wr core and alittle better coaching and Brees starting over again in NO without LT and Gates.

 

[DonnyT33]

Brooks just makes way to many bad mistakes and when he makes one it goes the other way for six. He also has no fight in him and never looks like he cares about anything. Give me Brees eight days a week the guys a winner and Brooks is not.

 

[Blackjacks]

Brooks just makes way to many bad mistakes and when he makes one it goes the other way for six. He also has no fight in him and never looks like he cares about anything. Give me Brees eight days a week the guys a winner and Brooks is not.

Was he a winner 3 years ago when he threw 11 td's and 15 int's and got benched for Flutie? I remember that year I lost a game due to having to start him (bye weeks and him getting me 1 point, yes 1 freaking point. I lost that week by 3 points I believe to the Fanatic, which even makes it worse. Oh well, you can keep on thinking he's a winnier but I'll be interested to see how he does in NO.

 

[Bojang0301]

When I saw Aaron Brooks turn around and throw the ball backwards, which is a fumble, I said that he was terrible. Nobody who does that deserves to be a QB.

 

[Blackjacks]

When I saw Aaron Brooks turn around and throw the ball backwards, which is a fumble, I said that he was terrible. Nobody who does that deserves to be a QB.

He definetly has done some things to make you scratch your head.

 

[guderian]

From 2003-2005, Drew Brees has averaged 2.95 INTs/100 attempts.

From 2003-2005, Aaron Brooks has averaged 2.74 INTs/100 attempts.

INT % 2004-2005Brooks--3.39%

Brees--2.44%

 

[J R]

He also has no fight in him and never looks like he cares about anything.

I don't really think is much of an analysis. How exactly would you prove this? Phrenology?I think Brooks's numbers have been worse recently b/c the team has been garbage. Bill James has argued that when teams lose, a lot of times it's the team's best player that gets blamed usually. That may be the case with Brooks, as even when they were winning some games and he was playing well, you'd see stuff like Haslett sending him off to leadership camp or something stupid like that. He was a top 10 fantasy QB for 4 years in a row from 2001-04 imo with at best average talent around him.

 

[Synthesizer]

All you gotta do is watch the play from a few years ago where A.Brooks threw the ball backwards about 15 yards to understand the frustration of having him as your NFL or FF QB.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

He also has no fight in him and never looks like he cares about anything.

I don't really think is much of an analysis. How exactly would you prove this? Phrenology?I think Brooks's numbers have been worse recently b/c the team has been garbage. Bill James has argued that when teams lose, a lot of times it's the team's best player that gets blamed usually. That may be the case with Brooks, as even when they were winning some games and he was playing well, you'd see stuff like Haslett sending him off to leadership camp or something stupid like that. He was a top 10 fantasy QB for 4 years in a row from 2001-04 imo with at best average talent around him.

whether it is 100% accurate or not, brooks does have a rep for not being a very good leader & inspiring his teammates... i can personally remember several times when he would make a bad play that would CONTRIBUTE to a loss (it is a team game after all ), & he would be yukking it up on the sidelines like they were up by 20?maybe i'm a dinosaur, but i liked old school guys like magic johnson during showtime... they HATED to lose, & took winning very seriously... you would NEVER see him yukking it up like brooks if they lost a game they should have won...

as far as additional non-phrenological ammo, just a few years ago, the team insisted that he enroll in a leadership seminar (not that it seemed to have much discernible impact)... i kind of doubt if brees would ever have to be asked to take leadership classes...

also, as others have noted, often times questions like this can be answered by following the money... look at the money brees secured, & what brooks got, & that will tell you something about how front office types, coaches & scouts view them respectively...

i have him in one dynasty league that i took over, where i have palmer & leinart, so i hope a change of scenery does him good... a couple observations are that i thought he was more dangerous when he ran more, but he doesn't seem to use his athleticism like he used to...

he also just seems to be missing something... again, whether accurate or not, brooks has rep for making costly mistakes at end of game in in crunch time...

he also seems to have regressed from his best work a few years ago (for several years he put up very underrated TD numbers)... i'm not sure if he is actually a lot worse, but he doesn't seem to be getting better... maybe he isn't a diligent student of the game, as far as maturing in his understanding of reading defenses (randall cunningham & c-pepp had this rep, as far as other good athletes at QB position who had/have somewhat tarnished images of not being hard workers, taking game as seriously as they could or being passionate students of game with burning desire to get better)...

 

[gman8343]

it's very difficult to prove a guy has the intangibles to lead a team. IMO Aaron Brooks does not have "it", whatever "it" is. I'd put him in the same class as Kerry Collins -- lots of talent, can win with a good team, but you never want to have them have to carry you, cause they'll make a dumb mistake and cost you the game.

Too early to see if Brees has "it," but I think his decision making has improved dramatically since the last couple of years while Brooks is still prone to make big blunders.

 

[packersfan]

From 2003-2005, Drew Brees has averaged 2.95 INTs/100 attempts.

From 2003-2005, Aaron Brooks has averaged 2.74 INTs/100 attempts.

From 2003-2005:Brooks:

Completion percentage: 59.1%/57.0/55.7

Fumbles (lost): 5 (4)/6 (1)/2 (1)

Brees:

Completion percentage: 57.6%/65.5%/64.6

Fumbles (lost): 1 (0)/3 (1)/0 (0)

INTs aren't the only end result of poor decision making. Carelessness with the football can lead to turnovers in other ways (i.e. fumbles) and poor decision making can also lead to incomplete passes which tend to thwart drives. Brooks fumbles the ball at a considerably higher rate than Brees and his completion percentage is considerably worse. What's more, his completion percentage has declined each of the past three years and his INTs have gone up. That is a distressing combination and one of the key reasons why the Saints finally gave up on him last season and benched him.

Brooks has tremendous physical talent, but he has always been undone by his poor decisions. That has prevented him from realizing his potential. Meanwhile, Brees plays within himself and the scheme and makes far fewer mistakes with the football.

There's no question in my opinion which one is the superior QB.

 

[Garrett]

<hijack>

If you put Daunte Culpepper on those Saint's teams how do you guys think he would have done? Culpepper was always second to Moss when it came to leadership in MIN. His fumbles seemed comparable to Brooks' INTs in terms of bad timing, game impacting. What did Daunte do in the MIN offense that will make the Brooks/Moss combo less effective than the Daunte/Moss combo? I honestly don't have a strong opinion on this yet, just curious to see what others think.

</hijack>

 

[jurb26]

When I saw Aaron Brooks turn around and throw the ball backwards, which is a fumble, I said that he was terrible. Nobody who does that deserves to be a QB.

The same could easily be said for Bret Favre.

 

[Chase Stuart]

When I saw Aaron Brooks turn around and throw the ball backwards, which is a fumble, I said that he was terrible. Nobody who does that deserves to be a QB.

The same could easily be said for Bret Favre.

Or Tom Brady.

 

[packersfan]

When I saw Aaron Brooks turn around and throw the ball backwards, which is a fumble, I said that he was terrible. Nobody who does that deserves to be a QB.

The same could easily be said for Bret Favre.

Or Tom Brady.

The combined championships, MVP awards, division titles and playoff wins suggest such a comparison is a tad bit ... faulty.

 

[Chase Stuart]

When I saw Aaron Brooks turn around and throw the ball backwards, which is a fumble, I said that he was terrible. Nobody who does that deserves to be a QB.

The same could easily be said for Bret Favre.

Or Tom Brady.

The combined championships, MVP awards, division titles and playoff wins suggest such a comparison is a tad bit ... faulty.

And defining a guy by one pass isn't?

 

[packersfan]

When I saw Aaron Brooks turn around and throw the ball backwards, which is a fumble, I said that he was terrible. Nobody who does that deserves to be a QB.

The same could easily be said for Bret Favre.

Or Tom Brady.

The combined championships, MVP awards, division titles and playoff wins suggest such a comparison is a tad bit ... faulty.

And defining a guy by one pass isn't?

It is, but the general point being made here is that when people think of Aaron Brooks they think of bone-headed plays, like the one mentioned above. Every QB who has ever played the game has made bad decisions. Brady, Favre, Montana, Unitas, all of them. The difference with the great ones is they are not defined by their poor decision making. Brooks is. He's never really won anything of significance and his game has always been marred by his poor decision making. That's who he is -- an immensely talented player who simply isn't (in my opinion) a very good NFL quarterback due to the fact he cannot be counted on to make the right decision at the right time.

 

[Chase Stuart]

When I saw Aaron Brooks turn around and throw the ball backwards, which is a fumble, I said that he was terrible. Nobody who does that deserves to be a QB.

The same could easily be said for Bret Favre.

Or Tom Brady.

The combined championships, MVP awards, division titles and playoff wins suggest such a comparison is a tad bit ... faulty.

And defining a guy by one pass isn't?

It is, but the general point being made here is that when people think of Aaron Brooks they think of bone-headed plays, like the one mentioned above. Every QB who has ever played the game has made bad decisions. Brady, Favre, Montana, Unitas, all of them. The difference with the great ones is they are not defined by their poor decision making. Brooks is. He's never really won anything of significance and his game has always been marred by his poor decision making. That's who he is -- an immensely talented player who simply isn't (in my opinion) a very good NFL quarterback due to the fact he cannot be counted on to make the right decision at the right time.

Even if we were to assume that Brooks has been a poor decision maker in the past, it takes another leap to say that he's going to be a poor decision maker in the future.Certainly, being a poor decision maker in the past doesn't doom a player to being a poor decision maker forever. And being a good decision maker in the beginning doesn't insulate them from making poor decisions in the future. So how strong is the correlation? Maybe it's zero, in which case we shouldn't concern ourselves with how good (or bad) a decision maker Brooks has been in the past.

 

[jdoggydogg]

From 2003-2005, Drew Brees has averaged 2.95 INTs/100 attempts.

From 2003-2005, Aaron Brooks has averaged 2.74 INTs/100 attempts.

Touche. So you'd draft Brooks over Brees? I'm not saying Brees is Donovan McNabb. I just think that I'd rather start an NFL team with Brees than with Brooks.

 

[packersfan]

Even if we were to assume that Brooks has been a poor decision maker in the past, it takes another leap to say that he's going to be a poor decision maker in the future.

Not at all. Not when you have several seasons of data to use as the basis for that belief. The stats I posted -- the declining completion percentage and rising INT total in particular -- speak to a player whose game is declining. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to project more struggles ahead.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Even if we were to assume that Brooks has been a poor decision maker in the past, it takes another leap to say that he's going to be a poor decision maker in the future.

Not at all. Not when you have several seasons of data to use as the basis for that belief. The stats I posted -- the declining completion percentage and rising INT total in particular -- speak to a player whose game is declining. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to project more struggles ahead.

That's a different argument, and one that I don't disagree with. Arguing that consecutive years of declining stats is a strong indicator that the guy won't do well next year is pretty well grounded and I won't disagree with that. I was taking issue with your questions about Brooks' intangibles.

 

[packersfan]

Even if we were to assume that Brooks has been a poor decision maker in the past, it takes another leap to say that he's going to be a poor decision maker in the future.

Not at all. Not when you have several seasons of data to use as the basis for that belief. The stats I posted -- the declining completion percentage and rising INT total in particular -- speak to a player whose game is declining. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to project more struggles ahead.

That's a different argument, and one that I don't disagree with. Arguing that consecutive years of declining stats is a strong indicator that the guy won't do well next year is pretty well grounded and I won't disagree with that. I was taking issue with your questions about Brooks' intangibles.

The issues I have with his intangibles are supported by the statistics I posted.

 

[Pick]

All things being equal, I'd take Brees but it's close. Given their current situations, I'd take Brooks.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So you'd draft Brooks over Brees?

In fantasy, or in real life? In fantasy, I think it's an easy decision. I'd draft Brooks over Brees.

 

[jdoggydogg]

So you'd draft Brooks over Brees?

In fantasy, or in real life? In fantasy, I think it's an easy decision. I'd draft Brooks over Brees.

Certainly. He has a lot more weapons in Oaktown. I assumed we were discussing real life

 

[packersfan]

So you'd draft Brooks over Brees?

In fantasy, or in real life? In fantasy, I think it's an easy decision. I'd draft Brooks over Brees.

Certainly. He has a lot more weapons in Oaktown.

That's debatable. Moss is certainly the most talented WR on either team but he's had back-to-back seasons with injury issues. Horn has been a top-tier WR who is also coming off a putrid season. Both No. 2 WRs (Stallworth and Porter) have been inconsistent although Stallworth took strides forward last season and could be moving past Porter in terms of being a more reliable target. The Raiders have no TE to speak of; the Saints have Hilton, who I think is being very under-rated so far this off-season.

In the backfield, the Raiders have Jordan who had a strong season, especially in the passing game. But the Saints may get no worse than equal production out of McAllister and Bush combined given how both are very good receivers out of the backfield. And depending on Bush's impact, it's possible the Saints get more receiving production out of their backfield than Jordan will produce.

That could swing the advantage to Brees in terms of personnel. I don't think Brooks and the Raiders have a clear edge by any means.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

When I saw Aaron Brooks turn around and throw the ball backwards, which is a fumble, I said that he was terrible. Nobody who does that deserves to be a QB.

The same could easily be said for Bret Favre.

Or Tom Brady.

The combined championships, MVP awards, division titles and playoff wins suggest such a comparison is a tad bit ... faulty.

And defining a guy by one pass isn't?

It is, but the general point being made here is that when people think of Aaron Brooks they think of bone-headed plays, like the one mentioned above. Every QB who has ever played the game has made bad decisions. Brady, Favre, Montana, Unitas, all of them. The difference with the great ones is they are not defined by their poor decision making. Brooks is. He's never really won anything of significance and his game has always been marred by his poor decision making. That's who he is -- an immensely talented player who simply isn't (in my opinion) a very good NFL quarterback due to the fact he cannot be counted on to make the right decision at the right time.

Even if we were to assume that Brooks has been a poor decision maker in the past, it takes another leap to say that he's going to be a poor decision maker in the future.Certainly, being a poor decision maker in the past doesn't doom a player to being a poor decision maker forever. And being a good decision maker in the beginning doesn't insulate them from making poor decisions in the future. So how strong is the correlation? Maybe it's zero, in which case we shouldn't concern ourselves with how good (or bad) a decision maker Brooks has been in the past.

So if you've been an nfl starting qb for 5 years and made poor decisions for those 5 years, it's a 'leap' to assume you'll make poor decisions in year 6? Interesting.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I don't think Brooks and the Raiders have a clear edge by any means.

I think Oakland has a large advantage at the WR position. Besides Joe Horn, New Orleans is pretty thin at that position.

 

[packersfan]

I don't think Brooks and the Raiders have a clear edge by any means.

I think Oakland has a large advantage at the WR position. Besides Joe Horn, New Orleans is pretty thin at that position.

I think Stallworth has the edge over Porter, slight edge given how both have under-achieved but I'd give him the edge. The Raiders have some decent backups but I like Henderson with the Saints as well. And given how Bush could end up being the unofficial No. 3 WR for New Orleans (much the way Perry was in Cincinnati for much of last season) I think that strengthens the Saints' case even more.

 

[Chase Stuart]

When I saw Aaron Brooks turn around and throw the ball backwards, which is a fumble, I said that he was terrible. Nobody who does that deserves to be a QB.

The same could easily be said for Bret Favre.

Or Tom Brady.

The combined championships, MVP awards, division titles and playoff wins suggest such a comparison is a tad bit ... faulty.

And defining a guy by one pass isn't?

It is, but the general point being made here is that when people think of Aaron Brooks they think of bone-headed plays, like the one mentioned above. Every QB who has ever played the game has made bad decisions. Brady, Favre, Montana, Unitas, all of them. The difference with the great ones is they are not defined by their poor decision making. Brooks is. He's never really won anything of significance and his game has always been marred by his poor decision making. That's who he is -- an immensely talented player who simply isn't (in my opinion) a very good NFL quarterback due to the fact he cannot be counted on to make the right decision at the right time.

Even if we were to assume that Brooks has been a poor decision maker in the past, it takes another leap to say that he's going to be a poor decision maker in the future.Certainly, being a poor decision maker in the past doesn't doom a player to being a poor decision maker forever. And being a good decision maker in the beginning doesn't insulate them from making poor decisions in the future. So how strong is the correlation? Maybe it's zero, in which case we shouldn't concern ourselves with how good (or bad) a decision maker Brooks has been in the past.

So if you've been an nfl starting qb for 5 years and made poor decisions for those 5 years, it's a 'leap' to assume you'll make poor decisions in year 6? Interesting.

When you're speaking about intangibles, then I think so. If you want to saw Eli Manning has a low completion percentage each of his first five years, and threw a lot of INTs each year, I don't think it takes a leap to assume he's more likely to have a low completion percentage and throw a lot of INTs in year 6.But if you say Eli Manning's game is marred by poor decisons and it's not borne out by the stats and is just an intangible, then it does require a leap IMO.

From 2003-2005, all QBs in the NFL averaged a 59.4 completion percentage and 3.17 INTs/100 pass attempts.

From 2003-2005, Aaron Brooks averaged a 57.3 completion percentage and 2.75 INTs/100 pass attempts.

Brooks' low completion percentage is understandable when you consider the type of offense he's in. Brooks has averaged 6.87 Y/A the past three years, while the NFL average has been 6.83 Y/A.

Brooks has been an average QB in Y/A, a below average QB in completion percentage, and an above average QB at interceptions.

Saying Brooks is (or has been) a bad decision maker isn't borne out by the stats. I'm not really sure what I think about fumbles being indicative of a poor decision. Running QBs get more fumbles because they get hit more often, but that doesn't mean running QBs are a bad thing. Brooks has 8 rushing TDs the past three years, which is worth something. And getting hit and fumbling often isn't the result of a bad decision (it could be bad blocking, a great defensive play, or a bad decision). But I don't think many people called Tiki Barber a bad decision maker for his fumbling woes.

Regardless, most of the criticism on Brooks is intangible stuff that's difficult to verify. And those are the sort of things that fluctuate the most from player to player on a yearly basis. And that's what requires a leap of faith.

But that's just how I see it. Lots of really smart people see things your way.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

I have an issue with using Brooks 2005 stats in any comparison. We need to recall Horn was gimpy pretty much the whole season and the whole organization from top to bottom was a mess because of the Hurricane/Flooding no home games/Travel poor practice facilities and real life issues intensified. Brooks in 2005 was bound to fail under those circumstances. There for please stop including a bizarre years statistics when taking shots at Brooks. Sometimes even a star can have things fall apart for a year...Brooks not being a star was not going to overcome that year. For that matter Brees hasn't done much with out Gates and no Hurricane/Flooding distraction. Emergence of a true star receiver whether at TE/WR can make an average QB look good. Brooks with a Healthy Moss will look just fine.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

Even forgot to mention Brooks lost Duece early in 2005 as well. Take away any QBs #1 RB and #1 WR and make them play on the road that much...with an owner that wasn't comitted to trying to overcome as much as trying to get permission to high tail out of town ....and Brooks having a bad year and speaking up about his Boss is understandable.

 

[Banger]

I've watched Brees since he's been the starter in SD and while he was a good qb the last couple years in SD my opinion is that it was due more to his surrounding cast than his ability as a QB. Before Gates, Brees was a few starts from losing his job and had Boller-esque type numbers. Gates became the best TE in the game (along with LT arguably the best RB) and Brees went on to have two good years.

Brooks has a rocket for an arm and a pea for a brain. That being said for this year with Brees coming off surgery and Brooks getting Moss I'd have to give the advantage to Brooks.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I don't think Brooks and the Raiders have a clear edge by any means.

I think Oakland has a large advantage at the WR position. Besides Joe Horn, New Orleans is pretty thin at that position.

I think Stallworth has the edge over Porter, slight edge given how both have under-achieved but I'd give him the edge. The Raiders have some decent backups but I like Henderson with the Saints as well. And given how Bush could end up being the unofficial No. 3 WR for New Orleans (much the way Perry was in Cincinnati for much of last season) I think that strengthens the Saints' case even more.

I don't agree that Stallworth has an edge over Porter. Stallworth has the *potential* to be better than Porter. But until Stallworth can stay healthy and consistent, Porter gets the nod. If you look at the third and fourth WRs on both teams, the Saints' backups will have to improve this year to prove that they are better than Gabriel and Curry.

 

[Jason Wood]

I'm with Maurile...in terms of fantasy, Brooks is the guy I draft over Brees without hesitation. If Im an NFL GM and want to win football games, I show Brooks the door and welcome Brees in with open arms. I'm not a huge Brees fan per se, but I think Aaron Brooks is one of the worst starting QBs in the league.

 

[saintfool]

longtime saints fan here... brooks played well enough to tease you in a game. he'd put up solid numbers in a furious comeback, which more often than not wouldn't translate in a win. he's got the physical skills, like a cannon for an arm but little else. he has trouble with "touch", which is required in a short passing game. he can be reasonably mobile, scrambling for yardage and TD's in the redzone, but stopped doing it in recent years with the Saints. perhaps with the raiders they will stress the vaunted davis pleasing vertical passing game, which will play to his strengths as a passer? perhaps he'll stop being a pocket passer and resume his scrambling?

brees will have no shortage of weapons on offense with capable and experienced WR's and a versatile running game. i worry a little about the saints o-line but that's always going to be there.

i think the upside, for this season at least, favors brooks more so than brees. brooks has weapons and is eager to prove his critics wrong.

 

[guderian]

When I saw Aaron Brooks turn around and throw the ball backwards, which is a fumble, I said that he was terrible. Nobody who does that deserves to be a QB.

The same could easily be said for Bret Favre.

Or Tom Brady.

The combined championships, MVP awards, division titles and playoff wins suggest such a comparison is a tad bit ... faulty.

And defining a guy by one pass isn't?

It is, but the general point being made here is that when people think of Aaron Brooks they think of bone-headed plays, like the one mentioned above. Every QB who has ever played the game has made bad decisions. Brady, Favre, Montana, Unitas, all of them. The difference with the great ones is they are not defined by their poor decision making. Brooks is. He's never really won anything of significance and his game has always been marred by his poor decision making. That's who he is -- an immensely talented player who simply isn't (in my opinion) a very good NFL quarterback due to the fact he cannot be counted on to make the right decision at the right time.

Even if we were to assume that Brooks has been a poor decision maker in the past, it takes another leap to say that he's going to be a poor decision maker in the future.Certainly, being a poor decision maker in the past doesn't doom a player to being a poor decision maker forever. And being a good decision maker in the beginning doesn't insulate them from making poor decisions in the future. So how strong is the correlation? Maybe it's zero, in which case we shouldn't concern ourselves with how good (or bad) a decision maker Brooks has been in the past.

So if you've been an nfl starting qb for 5 years and made poor decisions for those 5 years, it's a 'leap' to assume you'll make poor decisions in year 6? Interesting.

When you're speaking about intangibles, then I think so. If you want to saw Eli Manning has a low completion percentage each of his first five years, and threw a lot of INTs each year, I don't think it takes a leap to assume he's more likely to have a low completion percentage and throw a lot of INTs in year 6.But if you say Eli Manning's game is marred by poor decisons and it's not borne out by the stats and is just an intangible, then it does require a leap IMO.

From 2003-2005, all QBs in the NFL averaged a 59.4 completion percentage and 3.17 INTs/100 pass attempts.

From 2003-2005, Aaron Brooks averaged a 57.3 completion percentage and 2.75 INTs/100 pass attempts.

Brooks' low completion percentage is understandable when you consider the type of offense he's in. Brooks has averaged 6.87 Y/A the past three years, while the NFL average has been 6.83 Y/A.

Brooks has been an average QB in Y/A, a below average QB in completion percentage, and an above average QB at interceptions.

Saying Brooks is (or has been) a bad decision maker isn't borne out by the stats. I'm not really sure what I think about fumbles being indicative of a poor decision. Running QBs get more fumbles because they get hit more often, but that doesn't mean running QBs are a bad thing. Brooks has 8 rushing TDs the past three years, which is worth something. And getting hit and fumbling often isn't the result of a bad decision (it could be bad blocking, a great defensive play, or a bad decision). But I don't think many people called Tiki Barber a bad decision maker for his fumbling woes.

Regardless, most of the criticism on Brooks is intangible stuff that's difficult to verify. And those are the sort of things that fluctuate the most from player to player on a yearly basis. And that's what requires a leap of faith.

But that's just how I see it. Lots of really smart people see things your way.

Interesting that you start your data set with 2003--which was his career high in terms of completion percentage and his INTs that year of 8 are about half of what they were the year before (15) and the year after (16). When you look at the trend his completion %, QB rating and TDs were all down each year since 2003 and his # of INTs has increased each year. What is the logic for him bouncing back to his 2003 level when he has proven that he's not a very smart QB and now he's in a new system, with a new coach and new team mates?

 

[Big Score]

Even if we were to assume that Brooks has been a poor decision maker in the past, it takes another leap to say that he's going to be a poor decision maker in the future.

Not really Chase.To begin with, when people say Brooks is a poor decision maker, they are not assuming anything. It is reality and anybody who has watched Brooksm or followed his career, knows this.

Secondly it is not a "leap" to think he will continue making poor decisions. A quick look at his yearly declining completion %, tells us that this is actually a fact.

From 2003-2005:

Brooks:

Completion percentage: 59.1%/57.0/55.7

To me the "leap", is to think he will suddenly become a better decision maker, when we have a body of evidence that points in the other direction.

 

[fatness]

A lot of opinions in this thread are based on assuming Brees's shoulder is OK. I'm not sure that's a safe assumption.

 

[Big Score]

A lot of opinions in this thread are based on assuming Brees's shoulder is OK. I'm not sure that's a safe assumption.

I was only comparing the two as if both were fully healthy.I agree that if Brees shoulder is not healed, then in a Duh! no brainer, Brooks is the better QB.

 

[Fullback Fro]

Brooks is a better fantasy QB.

Brees is a better NFL QB

 

[Yah_Shoor_Yoobetchya]

There seems to be a prevailing opinion here that the impact Randy Moss had on Daunte Culpepper in his early years Minnesota will be the same impact (or more) that he will have on Aaron Brooks in Oakland.

It's almost like this Randy Moss character does not age and will never "lose-a-step".

Do you really think the 1998-1999 Randy Moss is = or > the 2006 Randy Moss?

 

[Blackjacks]

Brooks is a better fantasy QB.

Brees is a better NFL QB

This really makes it simple, doesn't it?

 

[Garrett]

There seems to be a prevailing opinion here that the impact Randy Moss had on Daunte Culpepper in his early years Minnesota will be the same impact (or more) that he will have on Aaron Brooks in Oakland.

It's almost like this Randy Moss character does not age and will never "lose-a-step".

Do you really think the 1998-1999 Randy Moss is = or > the 2006 Randy Moss?

You are right that he is not in the same physical shape as his early years, but I would also note that he is much more capable as an on the field leader for the offense than he was as a rookie (since this is something most people agree Brooks needs some help with). Moss is still 3-4 years younger than a guy like TO and only one year older than Chad Johnson.

 

[John Mamula]

Brees is clearly the better fantasy QB.