Aaron Brooks benched

Are you twelve?

 

First of all, the term "very talented" is vague. Second, using that term to descibe someone who has serious defects such as intelligence and leadership ability is stretching the truth...IN MY OPINION.

All that aside, what got under my skin was this:

What a load of condescending bullshit!

After making a comment in jest, I simply disagreed with an opinion. As my opinion of Brooks is less than that of Collin's and appearently everyone else in the free world (please note sarcasm). I fail to see where my refusal to apply the term "very talented" to a player who I don't feel is worthy of such lofty praise should be cast as ignorant.

Collin, I wouldn't dispute your knowledge of the game, but your extreme arrogance is indisputable. Your opinion is not a fact, nor does backing your opinion with that of 100 sports writers make it a fact.

The actual facts do show that Brooks has talent:
G GS Att Comp Pct Yards YPA Lg TD Int Rate
85 82 2771 1563 56.4 19156 6.91 76 120 84 79.7

One doesn't put up numbers like that without some talent, however I will continue to dispute the use of the word "VERY" in relation to Brooks talent based on his inability to lead a winner. A "very talented" QB would have been able to pull off at least one legit run at a title. (prepare for sarcasm)...The Saints would be 13-0 with Brett Favre under center...(end sarcasm)

Either way, it's argueing semantics. It was calling my opinion ignorant that got this whole thing rolling.

 

Jason Whitlock says shut the fuck up : The Saints are about three years too late in benching Brooks. The guy put up some decent numbers but never won an important game. It's a lot easier for the Saints to do radio and TV interviews complaining about Katrina and commissioner Paul Tagliabue's reaction to Katrina than it is for the players to admit that they stunk in 2005 just like they did in '04, '03, '02 and every other year.

 

No, but most of his dates are

 

Imagine that, Whitlock bashing a black player. I swear that fat turd hates his own race. He might not be so bad if he'd stop saying/writing "When I played the game". He doesn't seem to realize that it doesn't exactly help his credibility, tends to put people off because whatever he says after that is usually so far out there you can't get your head around it no matter how hard you try.
He is a HUGE McNabb supporter though.

 

I've never seen him write that. He was horrible on PTI but I think he usually writes a solid column, save the stupid ass fake emails that start it.

 

I was referring to the quarterback position and not the overall team. Seriously, do some of the posters on this board do nothing but wait to read something that they can spin in a different direction, then do something worthless by typing out their thoughts?

 

With the exception of Don Banks, none of those writers really expanded on their definition of "very" talented in relation to Brooks. His physical advantages are obvious, as outlined by Banks, but I think it is safe to question the degree of talent level.

I do think Brooks is talented and, given a second chance, he could be productive in an offense that allows him to maximize his ability, as opposed to his handcuffed 2005. But I have never considered him to be very talented. I think he would have been drafted a little higher if he was, and Green Bay would have recieved a bit more in exchange for him if he was. And I think he would have had more than one proficient season in New Orleans if he was. IMO.

It is subjective language, kinda like how journalists and sports fans can overuse the word "great" at times.

 

Your opinion is wrong. No one with any knowledge whatsoever seriously disputes the fact that Aaron Brooks is "very talented." He is, whether you choose to admit that or not. You were wrong in the beginning, you are wrong now, and the more you choose to argue the point the more you give into stupidity. Actually I'm pretty sure that even you know that your position is stupid at this point, which is why you came back with a sort of conciliatory post after I cited all those NFL experts proving that you were utterly clueless. And you know what? You could have saved yourself a lot of annoyance by learning your place and shutting your fat mouth when you realized that you said something dumb. Owning up to it then would have kept you from any embarrassment and would have prevented this whole argument from happening, because as I noted, I'm not the one who made it nasty. You hurled the insults, I'm just the one who came out on top.

No, dipshit, your opinion really isn't different from anyone else's. Pretty much everyone is agreeing and has been agreeing all along that Aaron Brooks is not a good quarterback. No one has ever disputed that, and it's dishonest to try and make yourself look less stupid by pretending that's what the argument was about. Instead you made a stupid mistake in confusing talent with production, which we all know isn't equivalent, and you've been trying to cover up that mistake ever since. Instead you could have just admitted that you made a stupid mistake in suggesting that talent was somehow equal to production and agreed with what I said in the first place:

You chose to argue because you're a stupid shit who thinks he knows more than he does, but you don't, and you need to face reality.

Yes, me bringing out the biggest names in NFL analysis, all of whom agreed with what I said, has absolutely no bearing on whether I'm right or wrong. The only people who are going to buy that line of bullshit are people who have been in your shoes, embarrassed about arguing an obviously incorrect point of view and resentful of someone else a hell of a lot more knowledgeable pointing out just how wrong they are.

You are one dumb mother fucker. After all the discussions we've had here and that people have had on sports boards and talk shows and T.V. shows around the country about how TALENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE WINNING, obviously whether or not Brooks leads his team to wins has no bearing whatsoever on his talent level. Is Brad Johnson more talented than Daunte Culpepper? Obviously fucking not, but your dumbass logic would have people believe that Johnson is more talented because he's the one making his team a winner while Culpepper didn't. Instead those truths show that being talented and winning games are two separate things.

No it isn't arguing semantics, you dumbshit. You said something stupid and wrong. It's not a valid opinion to say that Aaron Brooks isn't "very talented" because he doesn't win enough games, because being talented has never guaranteed someone of being a winner. You were wrong, plain and simple, and you aren't man enough to just admit that. You're a giant pussy who would rather whine and lash out than acknowledge your mistake, even when the biggest names in NFL analysis all prove you wrong.


DJ_Tet:
Hey cockgobbler, Whitlock never said that Brooks isn't very talented, he said that he's a bad quarterback. And maybe if you had enough intelligence to actually read posts and comprehend them, you'd notice that I've been saying that all along. Try not letting your desire to argue with me make you look like such a moron.

 

The draft is approaching quickly and soon that will dominate the board. The first round will be made up of "very talented" players. Many will be unsuccessful for various reasons. Just sayin.