What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Interesting Aaron Brooks quote (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still can't find the specific article mentioned. I did however, find this by Jeff Duncan. The article is kind of surprising because Duncan is usually the team's optimistic mouthpiece (Horn comments in bold):

http://whodatzone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1422

FAMILIAR REFRAIN

Management, coaches, players continue to misstep, resulting in N.O.'s struggles

Monday, November 01, 2004

By Jeff Duncan

Saints General Manager Mickey Loomis was right a few weeks back when he said, "Everyone is accountable" for the club's disappointing season.

There is plenty of blame to be shared in New Orleans' 3-4 start, and the bulk of the blame is certain to target Coach Jim Haslett and his staff, who likely will pay with their jobs at the end of the season if they can't reverse the shaky start.

As coach, Haslett must assume responsibility for the club's failure to meet expectations, but like anything, the widespread problems are much deeper and more complex than simply coaching.

First and foremost, the players have to take responsibility for the disappointing season. The Saints were counting heavily on a handful of young veterans to emerge with breakout seasons this year, but so far, few have produced.

Wide receiver Donté Stallworth has not developed into the big-play threat the Saints were counting on when they selected him with the No. 13 pick in the 2002 draft. He has 28 catches and one touchdown in five starts. Worst of all, his 12-yard average is the lowest of the team's top four receivers.

Jerome Pathon replaced Stallworth in the starting lineup against the Oakland Raiders, and the move could be permanent.

Tight end Boo Williams opened the season with Pro Bowl aspirations. Those dreams quickly disappeared along with much of his playing time after an early spate of dropped passes, inconsistent blocking and mental errors.

In recent weeks, Williams gradually has been phased out of the weekly game plan. His production (13 catches, one touchdown) is not half of what it should be at this stage.

Offensively, the right ankle injury to running back Deuce McAllister was a major blow.

McAllister suffered the injury on his second carry of the second game of the season and hasn't been the same since. After ranking second in the conference in rushing last season, he ranks 13th with 280 yards this season. His 3.4-yards-per-carry average is the lowest of his career. Some coaches believe McAllister has run tentatively because of the injury and his fumbling problems earlier this season.

Defensively, the disappointments are even more numerous.

Johnathan Sullivan, James Allen and Cie Grant did not assume the lead roles team officials expected.

Sullivan reported to camp in poor condition, lost his starting job to a former street free agent and appears content to ride the bench. The Saints desperately needed Sullivan to step forward but he has been a non-factor. His lackadaisical attitude and apathetic sideline demeanor at Oakland irked many in the organization.

Knee problems continued to hound Grant, who was placed on injured reserve before the season. His absence forced rookie Courtney Watson to start at middle linebacker. He wasn't ready, opening the door for steady veteran Orlando Ruff.

Allen failed in a cameo role at strongside linebacker and was replaced in the lineup by Sedrick Hodge.

Meanwhile, normally reliable veterans Darren Howard and Fred Thomas have seen their play drop off drastically. Both were signed to major contracts during the offseason, but neither had managed to justify their salaries.

As the franchise free agent, Howard was guaranteed an annual salary of $6.5 million. As has been the case for much of his career, injuries have hampered his production. Sidelined for three games by neck and knee injuries, he has nine tackles and 3 ½ sacks.

Coming off a career year, Thomas turned down the Philadelphia Eagles to sign a four-year, $14 million contract with the Saints. However, he has responded with the worst stretch of games of his NFL career. In the first six games, he failed to make an interception and had one pass breakup. He lost his starting job to Mike McKenzie and is in danger of being replaced as the nickel back by Jason Craft.

Poor execution

The book on the Saints is clear and easy to follow.

Defenses stack the line of scrimmage to stop McAllister and play deep in the secondary to prevent big plays. In the process, they force the Saints' inconsistent passing game to execute long drives. More often than not, they fail. A dropped pass. A blown route assignment. An off-target throw. A protection breakdown. Invariably, something goes wrong.

Williams, Stallworth and Joe Horn are the leading violators.

Horn annually ranks among the team leaders in mental errors. Team officials are willing to put up with such mistakes from a player as competitive and productive as Horn, but Williams and Stallworth have not attained that status. As a result, they've seen their opportunities squeezed in recent weeks.

Penalties, especially pre-snap infractions, have been a problem.

Tackles Victor Riley and Wayne Gandy have played decently, but both have contributed heavily to the Saints' total of 51 penalties. Twenty-eight of the infractions are pre-snap penalties, including 18 false starts. Riley has been whistled for a team-high six false starts, and Gandy has three holding calls and four false-start infractions.

The Saints have experienced similar breakdowns on defense, where the game plan for opposing coordinators is the same as it has been for years: Pass on first down against the Saints' base personnel package, preferably in play-action, then run against their undersized sub packages.

It all starts with the run defense, which gradually has deteriorated in each of Haslett's five seasons. Four rushers have topped 100 yards against the Saints this season, including old-timers like Emmitt Smith (127 yards) of the Cardinals and newbies like Vikings rookie Mewelde Moore (109).

Poor linebacker play is the major culprit. The group, as a whole, lacks instincts and physicality. There's a reason the Saints are the only team in the league with two safeties (Tebucky Jones 51, Jay Bellamy 40) as their leading tacklers.

The shoddy running game has a domino effect on the rest of the defense. In an effort to slow down the run, the Saints often "load up" on early downs, leaving the secondary vulnerable to big plays in the play-action passing game.

The Saints have given up too many big plays on first down. The poor first-down defense is a reason why the Saints have yielded 33 receptions of 20 yards or more, by far the highest total in the league.

Coaching blunders

The staff is respected around the league, but they have contributed to the problems.

Players criticize the defensive scheme as unnecessarily complex and frustratingly conservative. Others gripe that the offensive game plans are too conservative and fail to take advantage of the lineup's personnel.

Players have groused privately about the conservative nature of the weekly offensive game plans, especially to start games. Intent on establishing the run, the Saints routinely open the game in two-tight end or "regular" sets with fullback Mike Karney and try to set the tone. Too often, they go three-and-out.

As a result, the Saints are habitual slow starters. They routinely fall behind and are forced to abandon the running game to play catch-up. The Saints have failed to score in the first quarter of six of their seven games, continuing a theme from recent years.

In the wake of the Vikings rout, Venturi scaled back the defensive game plan. Haslett got much more involved in the weekly coordination and worked with Venturi to make four changes to the starting lineup. Unfortunately, the changes might have occurred too late.

Poor personnel decisions

Loomis and director of player personnel Rick Mueller make the call in free agency and on draft day so they, too, must shoulder some accountability.

Mistakes in player acquisition have contributed to the problems on defense.

The 2003 draft should have been the foundation for the future of the franchise. Fresh off a solid 9-7 season and armed with a windfall of picks from the Ricky Williams trade, the Saints were poised to become annual contenders in the NFC playoff race. The Saints went into the offseason with an NFL-high five first-day draft picks: Two first-rounders, a second-rounder and two third-rounders.

They used one of the picks in a package to acquire Jones in a trade with the New England Patriots. Jones has struggled and the team has received little production from the other three picks.

The two first-round picks were used to move up in the draft and acquire Sullivan, who has been such a disappointment with his attitude, conditioning and immaturity that some club officials are prepared to write him off as a bust and move on without him.

Second-round draft pick Jon Stinchcomb has been inactive for 16 of 23 games. Team officials insist he will be a quality starter in time. Still, it's arguable that the Saints could have used that pick to acquire more defensive help.

Third-round pick Cie Grant has been sidelined by knee injuries that some team officials believe could be chronic. His future is cloudy.

Some team officials also question the decision to draft LSU wide receiver Devery Henderson in the second round of this year's draft. He has big-play potential and should eventually develop into a starter, but he's not ready to play and has been inactive for six of the first seven games. With so many pressing defensive needs, the selection of a receiver at that spot is debatable.

No other team in the NFL is getting less production from its past two second-round draft picks.

While its true that second-rounders like Denver's Terry Pierce, Indianapolis' Bob Sanders, Tennessee's Antwan Odom, Pittsburgh's Alonzo Jackson and New England's Marquis Hill have not produced much, those teams have the luxury of being patient. Coming off three consecutive non-playoff seasons, the Saints couldn't afford to waste valuable picks on "projects" like Stinchcomb and Henderson.

Likewise, the Saints were conservative in free agency and have been criticized for being $8.1 million under the $80.1 million salary cap.

At the time, team officials explained the strategy by saying they believed the club's core of young players was ready to assume lead roles. For the most part, that hasn't happened. Which leads to an inevitable conclusion: Either the coaching staff can't get the talent to produce or the "talent" is grossly overestimated.

If the Saints don't turn it around, the answer will be clear soon.

. . . . . . .

Jeff Duncan can be reached at jduncan@timespicayune.com or (504) 826-3405.

 
Last edited:
whole lotta words...ill read later.Still....40% of the time. That is laughable.
Since I can't find the specific article, feel free to disregard the 40% comment. But I'm not making it up........I just can't find the link to prove it.The Duncan article says it all though. When your best receiver is one of the team leaders in mental errors every year.......you have a problem. Gueridan can continue to insult me all he wants for being a supposed "Brooks apologist" or a "deluded LSU homer". I don't know why he feels the need to constantly insult those who don't agree with his view, but it doesn't make a bit of difference to me.
 
Last edited:
whole lotta words...ill read later.

Still....40% of the time.  That is laughable.
Since I can't find the specific article, feel free to disregard the 40% comment. But I'm not making it up........I just can't find the link to prove it.The Duncan article says it all though. When your best receiver is one of the team leaders in mental errors every year.......you have a problem.

Gueridan can continue to insult me all he wants for being a supposed "Brooks apologist" or a "deluded LSU homer". I don't know why he feels the need to constantly insult those who don't agree with his view, but it doesn't make a bit of difference to me.
Hi ISF,In all honesty, I don't think anyone could read this thread and say that you're not giving the impression that you're a Brooks apologist.

I understand you don't feel that way. But only because you've told us so. But the reality is that if you read what you wrote, you sound like a Brooks apologist.

Huge point - that's not an insult. That's the impression I (and others) get from reading this thread.

Nothing wrong with that.

J

 
I understand you don't feel that way. But only because you've told us so. But the reality is that if you read what you wrote, you sound like a Brooks apologist.
No, I sound like a person who has seen this whole thing before and knows that it has little to do with the players.I suppose if this was two years ago, I would be a "Roaf apologist", or a "Turley apologist" (even though I think the guy is a #######' nutjob), or a "Glover apologist", or a "Sammy Knight apologist"........or an apologist for any other number of players who have been scapegoated for the problems of the entire team.It's just experience. I've seen this happen before. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
I understand you don't feel that way. But only because you've told us so. But the reality is that if you read what you wrote, you sound like a Brooks apologist.
No, I sound like a person who has seen this whole thing before and knows that it has little to do with the players.I suppose if this was two years ago, I would be a "Roaf apologist", or a "Turley apologist" (even though I think the guy is a #######' nutjob), or a "Glover apologist", or a "Sammy Knight apologist"........or an apologist for any other number of players who have been scapegoated for the problems of the entire team.It's just experience. I've seen this happen before. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sorry ISF,We'll just have to disagree on what you sound like. Enough for me on this one.J
 
The Saints are a terribly run organization, with a team much less talented than people give them credit for.The defense has a couple good-very good players, and a crew of others that would start for no other team in the league. The OL is all crap except for Bentley, who is out of position anyway.McAllister is a stud. Brooks is a better QB than most give him credit for (a few ESPN lowlights mocking him makes a bad career not). Horn is a warrior. Stallworth is overrated trash. Pathon is a possession WR in a speed WRs body. And the coaching has been abysmal. Haslett brought in these flawed players. In 2 years we've had 6 picks in the 1st 2 rounds, and the only guy getting regular time is Will Smith now. Sullivan is a huge bust. Henderson and Stinchcomb never play. Watson is demoted. Time to pay the price.The Saints need to blow this team up, keep McAllister, Bentley, McKenzie, Grant, Will Smith and Brooks. Everyone else is expendable.

 
What's wrong with the Saints?Lets start with the coaching...the play calling has been just horrible IMO. ALso what were the coaches thinking losing a good run blocking FB that fits McAllister's style of running. Last but not least, Aaron Brooks just doesn't care enough. I have not seen a single emotion on his face that he really cares for this team, that it matters to him if they win or lose. To fix the team, get rid of the coaches, get rid of the QB, get some defensive players and give Duece the carries.

 
I understand you don't feel that way. But only because you've told us so. But the reality is that if you read what you wrote, you sound like a Brooks apologist.
No, I sound like a person who has seen this whole thing before and knows that it has little to do with the players.I suppose if this was two years ago, I would be a "Roaf apologist", or a "Turley apologist" (even though I think the guy is a #######' nutjob), or a "Glover apologist", or a "Sammy Knight apologist"........or an apologist for any other number of players who have been scapegoated for the problems of the entire team.It's just experience. I've seen this happen before. Nothing more, nothing less.
Joe's right, you need to re-read your posts on this. You deflected EVERY criticism away from Brooks..."WRs dropped the balls"..."11 of his 11 fumbles were someone else's fault". Then when confronted with evidence that opposes your claims you change your stance to "WRs dropped balls in critical situations" or "I forgot about the empty handed passes." Sure I can forgive an oversight, but you even deflected his backwards pass as "being put in a bad situation". What does it take for Brooks to be successful? An all-pro line with stud receivers and tight ends and Bill Walsh calling the plays? At some point some of this criticism has to fall at Brooks' feet. As I've said before others are too blame and no one is innocent, but Brooks is an athletic, but mediocre QB with poor leadership skills and inconsistency. You and I will just have to disagree on that point.
 
Example (which, by the way, also happens to support your receiver drops argument)

From Buccaneers archives The Buccaneers, in need of a helpful bounce of the ball for some time now, got one near the end of the first half when WR Joe Horn – en route to a nine-catch, 118-yard effort – dropped a perfectly thrown touchdown pass. Had he caught it, the Saints likely would have taken a 14-0 lead into halftime; instead, an amazing string of events over the next two minutes gave Tampa Bay its 14-7 advantage.On the very next play, Brooks tried to throw again but the ball slipped out of his hand as his arm came forward. S Jermaine Phillips scooped up the fumble and returned it the Saints’ 37. Two plays later, QB Brad Johnson hit TE Ken Dilger on a shallow out and Dilger stepped through one tackle to score on a 14-yard reception.
Let's not forget about the circus catch Horn made in the back of the endzone after Brooks hit Aeneas Williams square in the numbers..
 
And on top of that, he has to hear idiots who obviously have very little idea of how the game of football is played bash him constantly for things that are not his fault at all.
Yeah, anyone who knows anything about football knows that a lineman 10 yards behind the QB is a good target under certain circumstances. It wasn't Brooks fault that he threw that asinine pass. If the right play would have been called the lineman would have run a quick out, not a 7 step pass protection.C'mon. Yeah he's hindered by a terrible siuation, but every time he takes a step forward he takes two back. He almost did the same thing again this week. He's got a gun and some wheels but I think HIS performance is all his fault, caused in part by and adding to the team sucking in general. Maybe he'll do better somewhere else, PLummer didn't. But bad coaching, playcalling, blocking blahblahblahing doesn't make him do stupid stuff like that. He makes the mistakes as much as the rest of the team.
Plummer is a bad choice for your arguement......when its all said and done...Plummer will be a decent QB for Denver....and I think the change of scenery has helped him, not to mention the Coaching...which can take sometime to develop....which is why it seems Plummer has turned a corner recently.But IMO....Brooks is a much more skilled QB than Plummer...Is he more focused or as smart?...who knows..but he has a VERY strong arm and is VERY mobile, a little like his cousin...I agree with many that Brooks has been poorly coached and utilized by that Coaching staff.....not to mention the pressure of having to play from behind for the last 20 games.With his skills..he might land in a better situation....Plummer did.
 
Wow,

Looks like I missed quite a spirited conversation.

It's a long standing truism that QBs and coaches get way too much of the blame when teams are losing, and way too much praise when they're winning. That's partly perpetuated by the fans and media, but also has roots in the fact that they are arguably the two people with the most direct control over what happens on gameday.

The NFL itself has glorified the QB position, putting rules in place specifically designed to keep QBs healthy at the expense of defensive players.

I think that plays no small part is explaining the disconnect between what Brooks' apologists and Brooks' critics are dealing with. Most people hold QBs to a higher standard than their counterparts. Is that fair? Well, I would contend that whether it's fair or not, it's reality. The QB is the glamour position, he's the leader in the huddle, he's the guy who will be viewed as having led the team to victory or defeat. The great QBs embrace that challenge. They own the huddle. They put the team and its problems on their back even when things didn't appear to be their fault. That extends from what a player does on the field (i.e., after a botched play) to the locker room to the media (i.e., making statements accepting blame not passing the buck).

In reading what ISF has said, I think AT BEST all we can say about Brooks is he's no worse than his teammates in how he handles himself. And for most (myself included) that's not enough. He's the team's leader whether he wants to be or not. He's the guy the cameras are on after a play. He's the guy the cameras cut to on the sidelines more often than not after a botched offensive series. He's the guy every beat writer wants a quote from after the game.

To say that Brooks' comments and actions are excusable because others on the team would do the same is a really lame copout and frankly, if that's the best it gets in New Orleans I feel badly for Saints fans.



Now, let me be clear, I don't think that:

A) Brooks is a bad QB -- Physically he's a talent. And he's capable of putting together an impressive offensive showing for weeks at a time. However, I have personally seen him walk off the field too many times smiling ear to ear after an INT or fumble or 3 and out. Maybe he's gotten a bit better at that this year, but those comments he makes to the media take away any pass I would give him on that front.

B) Brooks can't be a good QB -- Whether that means surrounding him with a better coaching staff (in NO or on another team, doesn't matter) but I'm not sure you can teach someone to be a leader; that's the X factor. There's no question Brooks is far too talented (and accomplished) to think he won't be either the Saints starter or another teams' starter next year. Ideally he moves to another team and we start to answer some of these questions. But let's not forget that in an organization beset with problems (according to ISF and others) it was Brooks that was sent to leadership school. How many QBs in this league have been shipped off to a school to learn how to be a leader?

C) Haslett and his coaching staff are held accountable -- Haslett should have been fired long ago and why he hasn't is beyond me. I'm going to assume that he's done a good job convincing ownership that things aren't his fault, but let's remember that this guy was a defensive coach and linebacker who has manned one of the league's worst Ds in recent memory. And why not replace Venturi? He's been terrible.

D) Other players are blameless -- Other players have certainly not acquitted themselves in this Saints regime.

Ultimately, I think the book on Aaron Brooks' NFL career is far from closed. Kerry Collins was almost out of the league, having made racial slurs and become an alcoholic; hardly what a team looks for in a team leader, yet he changed his life and acquitted himself well for the Giants. Personally, we've seen little to no evidence that Brooks has the intangibles necessary of being a truly great QB. I don't think you can point to any great QB who didn't have the aura of being a leader on the field and off. So I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt just yet, but I also wouldn't count the guy out until we see how he handles a new situation (be that a different team or a new coaching staff).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jason you are correct...we both missed a very spirited discussion with some very good insight on both sides of the ledger.I would echo Jason's comments concerning Brooks and the overall duties/function of the QB in the NFL today. If it is fair or unfair can be argued for years to come but the QB in today's game has so much attention and focus that his play is often used as a litmus test for how well the team as a whole performs....What concerns me about Brooks and his tenure in NO is his comment that led off this dialoge

"We'll find out," Brooks said. "I'm not here for hearsay. I come to do my job, do what's asked of me and get out of here."
. I don't believe that Brooks or anyone should get caught up in hearsay, but to conclude that statement with that last part, at least to me implies he has given up on the organization. My interpt is that he will do what Haselet or the coaching staff direct him to do but nothing else to provide leadership on or off the field.If that is the case then the relationship of play to team is greatly diminished and would be better served by breaking up that relationship. I agree that this is not the only house cleaning that must take place in NO to right the ship but it is one of the symptoms that needs to be addressed.
 
So I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt just yet, but I also wouldn't count the guy out until we see how he handles a new situation (be that a different team or a new coaching staff).
Dont get me wrong....I never said he was blameless....I just think when a team WINS it can cure and hide many things...but poor coaching doesnt help the situation. Better coaching will normally breed confidence and a winning attitude, which can help a player develop mentally, especially if he has the skills...
 
Saints fans, I'd ask this: Does the laughing on the sidelines bother you while the team is getting drilled?That's a personal pet peeve I have with Brooks.J
You know, it does a little. However, I have to think that this team has bought into its own mythology. You know, the paper-bag-wearing-Aints mythology. They gave up on this season after only a few games. They're going through the motions at this point. So, Brooks laughing at the sidelines is almost understandable because the rest of the team is doing the same likely except they don't have the cameras on them. I firmly expect Haslet to get fired. Hopefully, there will be a legitimate coaching search and maybe that person can find the heart in this team.
 
To say that Brooks' comments and actions are excusable because others on the team would do the same is a really lame copout and frankly, if that's the best it gets in New Orleans I feel badly for Saints fans.
Just to be clear on this. Most Saints fans, local media and analysts associate Brooks with the laughing/"oh well" attitude toward mistakes and errors--and not the majority of the team. It is not as endemic as ISF makes it out to be. In fact, this clearly wasn't a criticism of the team when Blake was QB. Everyone can reach their own conclusion about this, but I wanted to be sure that everyone understood that there was a flip side to the argument that ISF has been making which is that Aaron is merely following the lead of the rest of the team in his habit of laughing off interceptions, fumbles and other miscues.
 
To say that Brooks' comments and actions are excusable because others on the team would do the same is a really lame copout and frankly, if that's the best it gets in New Orleans I feel badly for Saints fans.
Just to be clear on this. Most Saints fans, local media and analysts associate Brooks with the laughing/"oh well" attitude toward mistakes and errors--and not the majority of the team. It is not as endemic as ISF makes it out to be. In fact, this clearly wasn't a criticism of the team when Blake was QB. Everyone can reach their own conclusion about this, but I wanted to be sure that everyone understood that there was a flip side to the argument that ISF has been making which is that Aaron is merely following the lead of the rest of the team in his habit of laughing off interceptions, fumbles and other miscues.
One thing is for certain is that people are going to lose jobs in NO.....and that will wipe the smile off real fast :(
 
Joe's right, you need to re-read your posts on this. You deflected EVERY criticism away from Brooks..."WRs dropped the balls"..."11 of his 11 fumbles were someone else's fault". Then when confronted with evidence that opposes your claims you change your stance to "WRs dropped balls in critical situations" or "I forgot about the empty handed passes." Sure I can forgive an oversight, but you even deflected his backwards pass as "being put in a bad situation".
You are so full of crap it is not even worth arguing with you anymore. You are continuing to put words in my mouth rather than acknowledge what I am actually saying.BTW, Michael Clayton is a BEAST.
 
Joe's right, you need to re-read your posts on this. You deflected EVERY criticism away from Brooks..."WRs dropped the balls"..."11 of his 11 fumbles were someone else's fault". Then when confronted with evidence that opposes your claims you change your stance to "WRs dropped balls in critical situations" or "I forgot about the empty handed passes." Sure I can forgive an oversight, but you even deflected his backwards pass as "being put in a bad situation".
You are so full of crap it is not even worth arguing with you anymore. You are continuing to put words in my mouth rather than acknowledge what I am actually saying.BTW, Michael Clayton is a BEAST.
No. You need to reread your posts.
 
This smells of the Giants of last year...potential, just not living up to any of it, team just quits on the coaches...IF the Saints bring in all new coaches to wipe smiles off faces, this team might actually live up to its potential. Sometimes though, players just don't fit with a certain team. Yes, the coaches have been terrible, but I think Brooks needs to move on at this point. Not saying it's all his fault, but he does deserve some blame. Look at Buffalo this year. On paper, they had themselves a very good team. They just weren't winning. McGahee comes in and (as Madden would say) BOOM! Team starts living up to its potential. Most people here would agree Henry is an incredible football player, and most teams would love to have a player with his talent. He is not all to blame for the Bills losing, but it appears Willis is a better fit with that team. Maybe Brooks needs another team. Is he talented? Yes. Can he do well on most teams? In theory, yeah. Most of the Saints problems are not his fault, but he is to blame for a few things. I don't think Brooks will turn into the next Culpepper, but he's not the next Leaf either. He has tons of talent, but I don't think he'll ever be anything more than a solid qb for any team. Talent alone does not equal greatness, you have to have a personal desire, and that is something he appears to be lacking. Manning is an example of both talent and desire. Trent Green, IMO, is someone who has desire but not quite as much talent. Still a very good qb, but won't ever be a superstar or someone who can carry a team all by himself. Brooks can still be a good player in this league, but he's overwhelmed in New Orleans.

 
NO just neesds some pass rush. Pressure on the QB would create many of oportunites for this defensive secondary.JAA

 
No. You need to reread your posts.
No, YOU need to reread MY posts. If you can't see my point, then you are in some serious denial, man.
I understand your point is the Saints problems run much deeper than just one player. Doesn't change the fact that you've made excuses for every Brooks negative discussed in this thread.
 
Doesn't change the fact that you've made excuses for every Brooks negative discussed in this thread.
I most certainly have not...........and anybody who says otherwise either A) doesn't know how to read; or B) is so far entrenched in their Brooks hatred that they are spoiling for a fight for anyone who doesn't wholeheartily agree with them. I suggest you go back and read everything I have said with an open mind. You will see I am not "making excuses", I am merely giving the guy the benefit of the doubt.Shaun Smith and Johnathan Sullivan in the Georgia Dome pressbox taking plates of food during the game........Courtney Watson suspended for "disciplinary reasons"...........a group of players who openly question the coaching staff at every opportunity............an owner who doesn't know a running back from a backstroke............a GM who is an accountant and probably knows less about football than Benson...........bad facilities...........a defense that is on pace to be the second-worst defense any NFL team has fielded over the last 45 years.......terrible talent evaluation, particularly on defense............wasted draft picks........etc. etc. etc..........an openly hostile relationship between the organization and the fans of teh team............yet people want to point the finger at one guy all the time.When are people going to wake up and realize that the problem with the Saints is not the players? Players have come and gone and nothing has EVER changed. Even at their peak during the mid-80's through early 90's they were still widely-regarded as a joke and a second-rate organization. The Saints are without a doubt one of the worst 3 run franchises in the history of American professional sports. Has 40 years of complete ineptitude taught you NOTHING?
 
...........bad facilities...........a defense that is on pace to be the second-worst defense any NFL team has fielded over the last 45 years.......terrible talent evaluation, particularly on defense............wasted draft picks........
You're gonna have to explain the "bad facilities" comment to me when they have a brand new facility including a multi-million indoor training facility. Anyway, your comments regarding the defense and the team's poor "talent evaluation" sure have changed...you question the owner's football knowledge and the back office's talent evaluation, yet you were on the same page as they were earlier in the season...
I. Can't argue with the defensive line, they should be excellent. A GREAT three man DE rotation of Howard, Grant, and Smith; and what should be a pretty solid group of DTs with an ever-improving John Sullivan, two solid vets in Brian Young and Willie Whitehead, and draftee Rodney Leisle....III. The Saints secondary is very underrated. Contrary to popular belief, they are actually pretty good, having finished 8th in pass defense last year despite being thrown on the 7th most times of any team in the league. Seems like nobody knows Fred Thomas but he is a very good corner. Craft was a decent addition and Ambrose showed last year that he still has some gas in the tank.
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...topic=79629&hl=
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And I stand by those comments, based on the information available at the time, it was a perfectly sound analysis. The defensive line SHOULD have been good (the fact that it has not defies logical explanation). And the secondary, on paper, SHOULD be much better than it is. I don't think anybody can argue those points, based on the information that was available at the time.My point about talent evaluation has more to do with the young players they are drafting, not the established veteran players already on the team. Things like drafting Stinchcomb and Henderson in the second round and then not even letting those players see the field, instead of improving areas that actually needed improvement. Funny how you can only find two middling points out of the eleven I made in that entire post in your attempt to discredit me. But I'll give you credit, it was a nice try of spin-doctoring. .........Anybody know what Michael Clayton did this week?

 
Last edited:
Mortenson commented that he thought Haslett's job was pretty safe whlie the owner was still considering selling the team to an LA interest.Thoughts on that?(besides that this might be the second CoachGate Mort got himself involved with this week - Gibbs quitting being the other one)

 
And I stand by those comments, based on the information available at the time, it was a perfectly sound analysis. The defensive line SHOULD have been good (the fact that it has not defies logical explanation). And the secondary, on paper, SHOULD be much better than it is. I don't think anybody can argue those points, based on the information that was available at the time.My point about talent evaluation has more to do with the young players they are drafting, not the established veteran players already on the team. Things like drafting Stinchcomb and Henderson in the second round and then not even letting those players see the field, instead of improving areas that actually needed improvement. Funny how you can only find two middling points out of the eleven I made in that entire post in your attempt to discredit me. But I'll give you credit, it was a nice try of spin-doctoring. .........Anybody know what Michael Clayton did this week?
I'd be glad to critique the rest of those points for you. The ones I cited were particularly relevant since you called out the back office for poor talent evaluation and draft picks. You talked up their free agent acquisitions and many draft picks, you said their WRs and TEs were solid and in this thread you accuse them of running the wrong routes 40% of the time and dropping all of Aaron's passes. Now you are giving yourself a pass because it was "based on the information available at the time" yet you are calling out the coaches and back office for reaching the same conclusions. With respect to Clayton I guess that is what you are left to rely on. When I'm right I like to act like I've been there before...I'll stick by my original off season ranking where I said he would be in a tier below Roy Williams and Fitzgerald. On a point per game basis I'd say he is still behind Williams, but the injuries to Fitzgerald have knocked him below Clayton.
 
I'd be glad to critique the rest of those points for you. The ones I cited were particularly relevant since you called out the back office for poor talent evaluation and draft picks. You talked up their free agent acquisitions and many draft picks, you said their WRs and TEs were solid and in this thread you accuse them of running the wrong routes 40% of the time and dropping all of Aaron's passes. Now you are giving yourself a pass because it was "based on the information available at the time" yet you are calling out the coaches and back office for reaching the same conclusions. .
Again, again, my remarks were based on the information available at the time. I don't think it can be argued that the receiver play was much better in 2003 than it has been so far this year, and that several players have not developed at the expected pace that they should have judging by what they did in 2002 and 2003.Once again, I will stand by any comments I made, based on information that was available AT THE TIME. Judging by the overall optimistic content throughout the thread, I don't think anybody foresaw the Saints being this bad. My guarded optimism was hardly out of line.
 
Last edited:
Mortenson commented that he thought Haslett's job was pretty safe whlie the owner was still considering selling the team to an LA interest.Thoughts on that?(besides that this might be the second CoachGate Mort got himself involved with this week - Gibbs quitting being the other one)
Mort is in the distinct minority in that opinion. An owner doesn't get his GM to publicly question the coaching staff in a newspaper article nor does he compare the team to a high school team if he plans on keeping the coaching staff. I think you overstated Mort's statement on LA. There are no negotiations, offers, buyers or anything...its just conjecture related to the NFL's statement that they want a team in LA by 2008. I think part of Benson's frustration with the team and the coach is that their disastrous season has undermined his efforts to get a new stadium/renovated superdome. Did you also catch one of the questions during the 2 minute drill on ESPN Sunday..."is any player more of a head scratcher than Aaron Brooks"...Irvin and Jackson both said no. I take their opinion with a grain of salt, but Steve Young knows something about QB play and he laughed and agreed.
 
With respect to Clayton I guess that is what you are left to rely on. When I'm right I like to act like I've been there before...
It has nothing to do with being right. It has to do with you insulting other people because you disagree with their opinions and looking like a complete ### after being proven wrong. Just as you were in this case.It's a reminder to you, that maybe you shouldn't insult people. Because it's possible that you are actually the one who is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Did you also catch one of the questions during the 2 minute drill on ESPN Sunday..."is any player more of a head scratcher than Aaron Brooks"...Irvin and Jackson both said no. I take their opinion with a grain of salt, but Steve Young knows something about QB play and he laughed and agreed.
I don't see anything particularly "head scratching" about this one. Bad offensive line play=bad quarterback play. It's as simple as that.
 
Did you also catch one of the questions during the 2 minute drill on ESPN Sunday..."is any player more of a head scratcher than Aaron Brooks"...Irvin and Jackson both said no. I take their opinion with a grain of salt, but Steve Young knows something about QB play and he laughed and agreed.
I don't see anything particularly "head scratching" about this one. Bad offensive line play=bad quarterback play. It's as simple as that.
...and you don't deflect any criticism leveled at Brooks...
 
What were you saying about insults? Like Joe pointed out earlier in this thread, you have pretty thin skin...I'm going to hit the rack...good night Aaron.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...and you don't deflect any criticism leveled at Brooks...
Name me 3 instances where a quarterback has succeeded behind this bad an offensive line and I'll concede your point.You are so wrapped up in your side of the argument that you are projecting motives onto my argument that don't exist, just so you can have something to fight about.
 
What were you saying about insults? Like Joe pointed out earlier in this thread, you have pretty thin skin...
You are right, I don't respond well to being called a "delusional homer" for no good reason.Sorry if I have a problem tolerating #######s such as yourself.
 
...and you don't deflect any criticism leveled at Brooks...
Name me 3 instances where a quarterback has succeeded behind this bad an offensive line and I'll concede your point.You are so wrapped up in your side of the argument that you are projecting motives onto my argument that don't exist, just so you can have something to fight about.
That's a pointless argument with you. You'll whip out baseless statistics like "40% of the lineman block the wrong scheme on any given play..."With respect to motives if I do a search on your username and "Brooks" I get 55 threads...I think that is pretty self explanatory that you are on a quixotic quest to correct the world about their perceptions of Aaron Brooks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
With respect to motives if I do a search on your username and "Brooks" I get 55 threads...I think that is pretty self explanatory that you are on a quixotic quest to correct the world about their perceptions of Aaron Brooks.
I've never heard that stat about the linemen. I wouldn't doubt if it were true, but seeing as how I've never seen it anywhere, I wouldn't attempt to frame it as absolute truth. Just as I never attempted to frame the actual stat quoted (40% wrong routes) as actual truth, and in fact, qualified it as saying it could indeed be possible Haslett spin. Again, nice try.........but you really should try to comprehend the things you read before you shoot your mouth off.As for your second argument, you are perfectly welcome to search for any number of posts I have made about Brooks. I often post about Saints players because they are the team I watch every week. I make myriad posts about all the other players on the team as well. If you would care to type in things like "Horn" and "Stallworth" you would likely see a similar number of posts.
 
You're just as thin-skinned as you accuse me of being.Otherwise, you wouldn't fly into a mouth-foaming rage every time I post something that defends a certain somebody.And once again, if being "thin-skinned" requires me to tolerate completely unprovoked insults from the likes of people such as you, simply because your opinion disagrees with mine, you can call me thin-skinned until the cows come home.Just remember who began the cycle. Delusional LSU homer, indeed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top