Looks bad for anyone else in the Saints HoF, but I get the significance of winning the first playoff game ever for the franchise. Still think the team should have just gotten a section or something. He was a terrible QB for us mostly.

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by Lester Earl

Member since Nov 2003

278748 posts

Posted on 5/20/14 at 12:20 pm to Mr. Wayne

quote:
He was a terrible QB for us mostly

Fan since 2006 i suppose

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by SaintEB

Member since Jul 2008

22786 posts

Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:54 pm to Mr. Wayne

quote:
He was a terrible QB for us mostly.

YR - yards - TD - INT - RAT

2000 - 1514 - 9 - 6 - 85.7
2001 - 3832 - 26 - 22 - 76.4
2002 - 3572 - 27 - 15 - 80.1
2003 - 3546 - 24 - 8 - 88.8
2004 - 3810 - 21 - 16 - 79.5
2005 - 2882 - 13 - 17 - 70.0

Those were his peak years. He only played 8 games in 2000, played 13 games in 2005 but had a bad year (who didn't), and went to Oakland after.

Not a bad stretch of 4 years. Not terrible overall. Made poor decisions at times, but was really good for the Saints. No doubt he belongs in the Saints Hall.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Suntiger

BR or somewhere else

Member since Feb 2007

32992 posts

Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:12 pm to Mr. Wayne

quote:
He was a terrible QB for us mostly.

#'s as a Saint

82 games started
38-44 overall record
1,563 completions
2,771 attempts
56.4% completion rate
19,156 yards passing
120 passing touchdowns
84 interceptions
209 sacks
340 rushing attempts
1,410 yards rushing
13 rushing touchdowns
1 reception (which he threw to himself)

In Saints history, he's 3rd in completions, attempts, and yards.
Brooks is 2nd in touchdown passes.
And he has 13 rushing TDs, second among QBs to Archie's 18. (2 more rushing TDs than Mark Ingram)

2 ...

Report Post

Saints Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board