Aaron Brooks benched

collin, i don't think you're correct at calling reading defenses a non-talent. in fact, that's just bs. its a talent. calc based physics takes study for most, for me, but some folks i was at school with it didn't. one guy i was in calc II with in college didn't even bring a damn pencil to class, he just sat there and took it all in. he asked me why i went about learning things the way i did, and all i could say was 'god bless you root (that's his name), but we all can't learn the way you do.' he had a talent, just like reading defenses and making quick decisions is a talent. sorry i won't be here for my bashing, i'll check it out when i get back sunday night. going on a little late season bow hunt down in georgia.

 

No one is born with an innate ability to phys calc either. You're confusing two separate things: the skill of mathematical expressions and the talent of intelligence. Certainly a degree (some argue a large part, while others argue less so) of a person's intellect is genetic and therefore could be considered a talent. I obviously know that from experience. But it's just as apparent that no one is born with the ability to do phys calc. Even the smartest people have to learn the skill, while the natural ability of intelligence allows some people to learn the skill a lot faster than others. Honestly, maybe that's why I seem to be grasping this concept so much faster than some of you.

To give you an analogy, Player X might be born with incredible natural strength in his arm. That talent does not, however, imply the ability to throw the football with good mechanics. One's mechanical proficiency is a skill developed through coaching and study, but one that harnesses the talent of physical arm strength. Through this marriage of talent and skill, Player X can be productive.


But honestly, this is beyond stupid. McFly said something moronic, and some posters here and pretty much every article ever written about Aaron Brooks all agree that Brooks is very talented. The only reason some of you are even arguing this is because of who I am, which is a stupid reason to argue something and is only making you all look bad by forcing you to defend an obviously incorrect position. Seriously, there is no legitimate debate about whether or not Aaron Brooks is very talented. He is. All sources agree on that. Moreover, there's also no disagreement that talent does not equal production, because we often discuss how the most talented players or teams don't always win. None of us are even disagreeing that Brooks has deficiencies from a skill standpoint, but some of you are so stubborn and foolish that you'll argue with me about anything just because I said it. You need to learn to recognize that what McFly said was stupid, and that he was wrong to get his panties in a bunch and insult me because I corrected him. Defending him is only making you look bad.

 

So is Brooks missing some of the talents needed to be a good QB?

 

Brooks doesn't have every talent in the world (he does appear to be lacking in intelligence), but no quarterback ever has. He certainly has more than enough physical abilities to be considered "very talented," which was the issue all along. I said it, Piper said it, and pretty much every article ever written about Brooks has said it. That's what makes this argument so silly and unnecessary. Instead of trying to ride to McFly's rescue, you would have been doing him more of a favor by not reinforcing his mistake.

So Brooks is very talented, there is absolutely no question whatsoever about that. He is lacking in skills, however, which was also never a question.

 

Actually, I am not trying to rescue McFly, the point is you were wrong about most of your points.

Brooks has the physical talents to be a good QB, but lacks the mental talents to be a good QB. So he has half of what he needs, if you equate is in such a mannor. Not sure about everybody, but that damn sure doesn't sound "very talented" overall. Again Collin, I don't think McFly, Piper, myself or anybody else for that matter has disputed his physical talents.

The reason McFly, myself and others as think he isn't very talented overall is because he lacks the mental talents. That is all McFly said then you decided to go on your rampage about the physical talents of Brooks and equate that to his overall game for some reason. At first you said all of the non-physical things weren't talents and just skills and I showed you where they were. Not all talents/most you aren't born with, to some extent there has to be some parts of everything that has to be learned. Whether it's being an artist, running, jumping, critical thinking.


Remember you were the one that made the decision to jump McFlys shit over something you called stupid after the fact. IF that is the case then why did you say anything to him in the first place?

 

Joe Montana, John Unitas, Bart Starr, Bobby Layne. . .

Not a true strong arm among them, but count up the championships. We all tend to forget what a fine SI writer, Tex Maule, once called "the X factor," that indefinable something that turns some men into leaders. . . It also helps when you are surrounded by Lenny Moores, Raymond Berrys, Paul Hornungs, Jerry Rices, etc.

 

Actually I haven't been wrong about anything in this discussion, which is why I'm getting really tired of your suggestions to the contrary.

Obviously you lack something in the mental department as well, because I've already explained that skills like reading defenses, etc are not talents at all. I personally think he isn't that intelligent, which arguably could be considered one type of talent, but Piper already pointed out that he did get good grades at UVA, so that's hardly conclusive. Moreover, history has proven time and time again that intelligence is not a prerequisite for stardom as an NFL quarterback. Brett Farve is no genius. Terry Bradshaw is certainly no genius. Even Peyton Manning isn't considered all that smart, he just has the reputation for working dilligently at improving his skills.

I would have a much easier time entertaining your little fantasies if you weren't being such a moron. If you have the mental "talent" to do so, please note the fact that I wasn't the one who went on the rampage. I wasn't insulting in the way that I corrected McFly, but he's the one who responded with:

#1) I didn't say that all non-physical things aren't talents.
#2) You didn't show anything.
#3) I pointed out the fact that you're not born with the ability to read defenses. That is a skill that is developed over time, just like throwing mechanics are. High intelligence presumably assists in one's development of that skill, but it's obviously not a prerequisite given that some arguably dumb quarterbacks have shown that they can consistently find the correct receiver. That's because it's a skill, and you can develop that skill through hard work.

ARGH. You are so stupid that it's frustrating even talking with you. I feel like I'm teaching theoretical physics to a bunch of drooling invalids. The very definition of a talent is that it's something you're born with. Talents are things that are innate, while skills are things that you learn. You can't learn talents. If you sat and devoted the rest of your life to painting, you could become more proficient with the brush strokes and gain a better eye for color, but you would never develop a talent for it that you weren't born with. Similarly, no matter how much you worked for the next couple of decades, you could never develop an NFL-caliber arm if you weren't born with the physical capacity for it. But you could learn to read NFL defenses by studying them enough, because that's a skill.

No, cumstain, I didn't. McFly is the one who tried to correct me when I said that Brooks was "very talented," and McFly is the one who first got angry and started hurling insults when I asked him to stop arguing. Moreover, I'm going to show you just exactly how wrong and stupid you are:

Gil Brandt of NFL.com tells you and McFly to shut the fuck up:
"You've got to like QB Aaron Brooks. He's very talented, just inconsistent. In the two games they've won this year, Brooks led fourth-quarter comebacks. He does have ability"

Vic Carucci of NFL.com tells you to shut the fuck up:
" The Saints' ability to rally is a clear reflection of the quick-striking ability of their offense, and especially of their multi-talented quarterback, Aaron Brooks. The headline of Brooks' performance was his game-winning touchdown pass to rookie Donte' Stallworth with 1:11 left on the clock. But equally important were his 14-yard scramble and 11-yard pass to Joe Horn earlier in the drive."

ESPN's John Clayton tells you to shut the fuck up:
" Aaron Brooks may be an enigma in December, but he is a talented quarterback."

ESPN's Len Pasquarelli tells you to shut the fuck up:
"There is no doubt that Brooks has rare physical tools and, truth be told, if he ever goes down for any kind of extended period, this team won't win."

Peter King of SI tells you to shut the fuck up:
"Aaron is an extremely talented QB. He needs to prove that he is a guy that the team can count on in the 4th quarter when the game is on the line."

Don Banks of SI tells you to shut the fuck up:
"It was hard not to be impressed with the 6-4, 205-pound Brooks against the Raiders. He has a nice blend of athleticism and arm strength, and the swagger of a starting quarterback."

Paul Zimmerman of SI also tells you to shut the fuck up:
"Lively quarterback battle here, Jeff Blake vs. last year's surprising rook, Aaron Brooks. I have a feeling that when the season heats up, it'll be Brooks, whose potential is unlimited.


Now do me a favor. Either find one columnist in the entire world who says that Aaron Brooks isn't very talented, or do what you should have done in the first place and shut the fuck up.

 

You're also the only team in the NFC South who hasn't made it at least to the NFC Championship game.

 

Damn, Colon, I mean Collin. You have been wrong in parts of this discussion, and I will suggest whatever I want, if you don't like it, carry yourself to the kiddie game next door.

All of your links and quotes, what do you think they are talking about? They are talking about his physical talents, which to my knowledge and I know I pointed this out for you once we ALL agree on. None of those links or quotes seem to talk about his leadership, his mental toughness or other non physical talents, which is what I have stated all along with others as well.

But no, you don't want to concede that really, you just want to go back and argue about his physical talents instead, which again there is no reason since we agree.

You use Favre and Bradshaw as not being high booksmart QB's and I would agree about Bradshaw, don't know much about Farve, but both of them are very street smart, have leadership talents and other non physical talents as well, neither of them sure can run as fast as fast as Brooks or have the physical talents he does aside from arm strength, so they must have something going on for them to have had the success they have had.

So if somebody is called a talented writer or a born leader, they were born that way? None of it was learned? I agree you do have to be born with some type of foundation, but a lot of it is learned as well. Sure some people are born to run fast or jump high, but you can also improve your jumping through various training methods. You can make your arm stronger as well.

Maybe Brooks is a smart guy and just doesn't have the talent/skill to translate that into football smarts. Since you are so smart explain why his mental side of the game hasn't come along the way it should. Or why he hasn't developed into a leader? I mean he is smart, so surely he can figure out how to get better at those skills.

It's ok, go to bed "tiny dancer".

 

Your stupidity is giving me a headache. Gil Brandt calling someone "very talented" means that he considers them "very talented.' It does not mean "physically talented, but..." or "kind of talented but not really." It means "very talented."

Look dumbass, you lost this argument the moment you joined it. Now you can engage in further insults and denials if you want, but you aren't any good at it, so I suggest you either do what I suggested and shut the fuck up or else find someone more on your level to argue against. I hear that dukey is available.