O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

http://www.nfleurope.com/galaxy/news...2004_lede.html

We need to start O'Sullivan this season.

Otherwise, he becomes a restricted free agent and we lose him. I'm not prepared to watch another Saints backup go to the playoffs/superbowl. We have a budding elite talent. O'Sullivan has gone about as far as he can go without starting on the next level. His 60% completion is already better than what Brooks can do over a season. O'Sullivan has thrown 6 TD's to 1 INT this season. That stat alone speaks volumes about his decision making and grasp of what the defense is doing on the other side. He has good feet and moves around well. If left undefended, O'Sullivan will both move the chains and not back out of his protection. Lastly, O'Sullivan is like the great players; he makes the guys around him better. Brooks is just another of the pretty good quarterbacks, but he folds in the clutch and his team gives up on him.

We could unload Brooks to the Raiders for a ridiculously high draft selection or even manage Woodson out of the deal. We would take a cap hit this year to do it, but who cares? Brooks salary is about to go sky high anyway. Evidently, we aren't going to do anything with that cap room right now anyway. We unload Brooks and sign O'Sullivan and Deuce to long term deals and still come out ahead.

We deal Brooks and rid our team of its #1 cancer and give a guy with a limitless future a chance to take us to the promised land. So simultaneously, we start a guy who can be a winner for us and make a HUGE improvement on the defense. With that combination, it is a 10-6 season minimum.

With JT we have an honest chance to rise above mediocrity. It's foolish not to give him a shot.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

I stopped reading after the first line. ;)

Seriously though, you can\'t be serious? At least I\'m serously thinking, you can\'t be serious. Cause in all seriousness, it just doesn\'t seem like you could be serious.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

I agree that the Saints should give J.T. a shot, but not this year. I\'m not a Brooks fan by any stretch of the imaginiation, but I don\'t hate the guy either. He did improve his stats in most all, if not every, category last year. His only problem was holding on to the ball. That\'s a big problem, but if he can possibly correct that this season, then I say stick with Brooks. If Haslett and Co. can\'t find a way to make the playoffs this season, I have a strong feeling he could be on his way out. Loomis as well. If another coach were to come in, I could see Brooks being traded or cut so to give O\'Sullivan a shot. NFL Europe is NOT the NFL. True enough there have been a lot of players that came out of there and went on to become stars, but J.T. is still raw. I just hope he doens\'t get a raw deal like Jake got before he was shipped off. Give the guy an opportunity, but give Brooks another shot before you start the Goodship O\'Sullivan.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

To say Brooks is another Jeff George or a cancer at all means you haven\'t been paying attention. At. All. He will be why the Saints win a Super Bowl if ever they win one. Write it down.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

Welcome to the board kenpersons. I also believe in Aaron Brooks. You got 3 catorgories of folks here on Aaron Brooks:

1. Pro-Brooks.
2. Anit -Brooks.
3. Wait-n-See about Brooks.

It seems to be more of the Anti-Brooks folks here. Anyway, I\'ve read your comments on the home page. Look foward to your comments here on the message board.......

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

Hhhmmm... I have to agree with my esteemed college D_it_up on this one.

Brooks showed me early in the season that he had something. His play in the second half of the season was just flat bad and cost us games. Still, on this issue, I say give the guy a chance - amazing I know.

Were there another QB here that was capable and ready to take the starting job I might feel differently, but JT is still just too raw and Bouman might slip to third on the depth chart with the way JT is playing.

Anyway, I see no reason why this should not be a banner year for AB. He\'s had plenty of time as a starter, plenty of time in the system, plenty of time with his current receivers, plenty of help with leadership and management and efficiency and blah blah blah. With the weapons this team has he should throw for 3,500+ yards and 25 TDs. If he can keep his turnovers under 10 and his completion percentage around 60% the guy will deserve not only to be the starter here but a Pro Bowler.

Now, if he doesn\'t do that, then I think it is time to look elsewhere at QB. AB, like Haslett, has no reason not to put it all together this year. Additionally, I agree that JT is more likely to be the Saints QB of the future. The guy is efficient, seems more dangerous with his feet, and like someone else mentioned, has a ton of heart and leadership ability. Two years from now this kid can be the surprise of the NFL. I just hope he\'s our surprise and not somebody else\'s.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

Bouman in third! Say it isn\'t so!

He\'s the guy Haz wanted originally! He\'s the QB that can take us to the Super Bowl! He\'s smart! He doesn\'t turn the ball over! We\'re paying him a lot of money! He was the guy to replace Jake!

JT beats Bouman... NOOOOOOOOOOO.

Despair...

Ok, just kidding. JT isn\'t ready to play in the NFL. I do hope we keep him. However, lots of the QBs warming benches these days are QBs of the future. I\'m sure we\'ll have a different QB of the future even if JT gets away.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

PS - If we keep JT another year, you know he\'ll just show up to camp fat.

Ok, I think I got it out of my system now.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

The only 3rd string pine riders that Hasbeen allows a chance to start are those from Green Bay .

My early money is on J.T. ending up in Tampa Bay , where in 3 years Gruden has the offense up and running in Tampa and on to the Super Bowl again .......

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

Ok, I lied, I\'m not done with this one.

After people get all over our draft with this \"they haven\'t played a single down in the NFL\" stuff, how can one possible endorse JT? I\'m mean, he hasn\'t played a down in the NFL either - what would make you think that he\'d be better than any other guy who hasn\'t played a down. Apparantly, Will Smith is as good a QB as JT - after all neither of them has \"played a down in the NFL\", so it is completely impossible to tell if either of them would be any better than the other.

Alright, I might be done now. ;)

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

I find it hard to place ALL of the blam for any of our losses lastyear on Brooks alone. Yes he did have some fumble issues last year but does anyone remember the ONE big fumble by Duece? No one got down on him, and shouldn\'t have either, but Brooks did improve in most statistical category. Holding on to the ball can be corrected. People such as brooksmustgo are quick to point out all of the talented Saints back ups going to the superbowl with another team makes me wonder what they would be saying if we actually did what you say and allowed Brooks to go to the Raiders for Woodson or for whatever we get and then the Raiders go to the superbowl with him??? What would you be saying then? It\'s not the fault of just one guy that is keeping us from the big one it is the chemistry of the team. There has not been a year in recent memory that the Saints had a real \"team\" concept. There seems to be some controversy every year. We need this team to come together. When a group of 11 guys play together on both sides of the ball they are very hard to beat. We have alot of good quality talent and experienced players and also young guys but until they mesh into a well oiled machine we will always fall short. It\'s not Brooks it\'s the chemistry.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

Coastalkid

Could this be Leadership ??

A leader on defense and a leader on offense .....

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

OK, arguendo let\'s say that we unload Brooks on the Raiders and they go to the superbowl. It would be exactly like Tampa fans griping about letting Dilfer go on to take the Ravens to the superbowl. We all know that the Ravens D took them to the big game. Brooks taking someone to the superbowl is just as likely. If the Raiders got to the superbowl with Brooks, it would be in spite of him. But he is the big armed QB that Davis really likes and he has the big mouth and attitude common to the Raiders. He\'d be a great fit there.

I find this unlikely, but I do think that Norv Turner might be able to get better performances out of Brooks. The major obstacle to Aaron Brooks improvement is Aaron Brooks. They kid is convinced he\'s the best to ever play the game. That sort of attitude precludes honest self appraisal and improvement. But with the Raiders not having a really running game, I don\'t see them going all the way. The Raider receivers are going to keep Brooks from being successful. He absolutely requires fast guys who get separation. He doesn\'t throw timing or crossing routes very well. Brooks shows no signs of staying in his protection and when he does move in the pocket, goes backwards. Brooks is also about to get really expensive. If I\'m going to spend the same kind of money, I\'d rather have Woodson, because he can do the job you pay him for.

As for JT, we have to make a decision on him right now. About a dozen teams are going to be willing to give up a 4th rounder to pick him up as a restricted free agent. An honestly, even if he\'s just moving up to 2nd on the depth chart, it\'s a good move for JT. But if we unload Brooks for value, we can potentially get an elite CB or high draft picks or both in the deal. Then we can simply have open competition for the starting spot in camp between 2 guys who have made a reputation for good decision making, good arms, and great leadership skills. Even if JT lost the starting job to Bouman, I think he could live with that. Bouman\'s like 32 or something, so JT would then become the heir apparant. But to even think for a second that JT will be willing to stay here and be 3rd on the depth chart when he could have a chance to compete for the starting job is a fantasy. Either we do something constructive with JT or we lose him this coming offseason. Brooks is a dead end and has made that abundantly clear in his entire time here. It\'s time to act on the most promising backup in the league right now.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

BMG --

I actually enjoy reading any posts that have legtimate critcisms. Whether that be about Brooks, Haslett, or whoever. But, IMO, a lot of your remarks are just stuff you dream up in your head and you have no proof, and furthermore, you make those remarks and don\'t have anything to support them with. Take this remark on Brooks for example:

Big mouth? You know, Brooks has been highly criticised for not being more vocal. Everyone knows Brooks is not a loud mouth QB. Maybe Brooks is not \"media savvy\" but he\'s definately not a \"loud mouth\" QB.

Then there\'s this remark:

You make this statement, which I feel is another one of those thing you just dreamed up, but you make this statement and don\'t back it up in any kind of way? Do you have any evidence to support this with?? You don\'t have to proof it like you\'re in a court of law, but it would be helpful if you told us why you think this and make an attempt at making a convicing arguement. Which I think is very unlikely you\'ll be able to do.

Now that we have that out of the way, I\'d like to show where I think you are wrong.

You might have had a more convincing arguement if you talk about Brooks not being a great \"touch\" passer, but Brooks\' strong arm and passing ability make him one of the better quarterbacks at making throws into tight coverage. We all see Brooks throw those \"darts.\" That\'s far from being one of his problems.

Lord, Lord!! You sure have convinced yourself that a guy who has never played a down in the NFL is going to be something special. Luckily, we have some guys running this team that have the knowledge to know you don\'t go getting rid of a proven starting NFL QB and put the future of your team in the hands of a QB that has never thrown a pass in the NFL. I\'ll say this even if O\'Sullivan came in and took us to the superbowl, it would be the biggest gamble that a GM and coach has ever made in the history of the NFL. And, it would be a foolish decision.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

Not sure if you were defending me, BC or not, but BMG is just opinionated. I don\'t mind him sharing his opinion. I did take insult to being called arguendo though but won\'t allow it to bother me.
His opinions are welcomed just as mine and everyone elses. The difference between a opinion of value and one without values is justification. He has none as you pointedout. Thanks for your reply though.
How anyone can make a statement as fact based upon what they think is not a fact it is a opinion. BMG sounds like one of those who always favors the back up guy and not the starter. I do agree with the leadership verses chemistry part though. We do need more leadership.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

Coastal, \"Arguendo\" = For the sake of argument. It\'s just a shorthand expression I picked up along the way to make sentences shorter. I apologize for giving offense though. I want everyone to be able to have their say here and I don\'t expect anyone to totally buy in to my admittedly biased take on Brooks. Billy is probably my favorite poster here because he generally represents the polar opposite of whatever view I tend to be advocating.

I think it\'s OK to say that everyone on this board is opinionated. Folks that aren\'t don\'t spend a lot of time thinking about the Saints in May. So I embrace my opinionated-ness.

As for substantiating my claims William:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...immerman.draft

Even though he was wrong on the specific draft pick, I\'m thinking that Ozzie Newsome knows a fair bit about what Al Davis does and doesn\'t like in his QB\'s.

As for Brooks, we\'re all aware of his statements like, \" I pretty much owned them with my eyes the whole night.\" But I\'ll point back to his 1st contract holdout with us. (Remember he held out on the Packers too, as a 4th rounder, unbelievable. http://www.jsonline.com/packer/news/jul99/pack72799.asp)

http://cbs.sportsline.com/b/page/pre...573968,00.html

I would agree that Brooks provides no leadership on the field, but get between him and his top 5 money and he makes an enormous amount of noise. This sort of thing I what I mean when I refer to big ego and big mouth.

As for the passing stuff. I have to admit, my good friend 08 has been a tremendous help in recognizing that Brooks doesn\'t throw timing patterns. He is a decent sandlot QB, but it isn\'t a sandlot league. It isn\'t like he can go into the huddle and say, \"OK, Joe, Donte, Jerome, Boo, go long and whoever gets open I\'ll throw to.\" And since you mention it, he can\'t throw a touch pass to save his life. I swear, has no one on the Saints staff ever heard of a bucket drill? ;)









[Edited on 13/5/2004 by BrooksMustGo]

[Edited on 13/5/2004 by BrooksMustGo]

[Edited on 13/5/2004 by BrooksMustGo]

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

You know if Peyton Manning said that I would think it was trashy and that guy is deserving. Brooks, especially then, was WAY out of line with those comments. That\'s sickening - really I\'m getting more and more pissed having to reread that poo.


One thing is clear though - Billy, Saintfan, and Danno are wrong. The QB IS SOLELY responsible for wins and losses. Don\'t believe me? \"I did what no other quarterback has done in Saints history, which is win a playoff game.\" I guess AB thinks the QB is responsible for wins and losses - I guess that makes him pretty average over the last three years... definitely not top 5.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

WhoDat, this is your one style of argument I can\'t understand.

We know that you don\'t believe that the QB is solely responsible for wins and losses - otherwise, we could just have QB contests instead of games. But, you quote Brooks and seem to think that because he says it, it is true - please tell me you\'re joking? Furthermore, Brooks saying this or that dumb thing has no bearing on how good a QB he is, unless he says it to the guy who is protecting him or he is throwing the ball too.

Ok, I know you\'re kidding, but sheesh.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

I\'m guessing that public speaking has never been one of Brooks\' strong points.
He\'s definitely got some issues. He has lots of talent but seems to have a Napolean complex doesn\'t he. Remember his \"I\'m not a running QB\" comments? He implied he didn\'t want to be labeled as the stereotypical black QB that simply takes off running when his 1st WR is covered.

I wouldn\'t put much stock into any of his public comments.

Aaron Brooks is Charles Barkley, without the charisma.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

Yes Jkool, that was sarcasm. But it is funny to me that people on this board defend Brooks commonly making the argument that the TEAM let HIM down, yet Brooks claims that HE is the reason the Saints won a playoff game. Their own golden boy is contradicting their statements. Those were pretty dumb and selfish statements - and I often hear about how Brooks isn\'t dumb and isn\'t selfish on this board. Seems maybe it is those people who don\'t know the real Brooks. ;)

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

I thought that after last season there was a long discussion of Brooks intellect. Wasn\'t the conclusion that a number of his problems stemmed from his \"not-so-smarts\"? All that to say, there are many here who DOUBT AB\'s intelligence.

Good analogy Danno!

WhoDat, wouldn\'t you say that selfishness is not all that rare among the young millionaires of the NFL? I guess, I never really thought about it, but it seems to me that a profession like football player, where the payoffs are large but only for a short period of time, selfishness would be quite rational.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

PS - I\'m still trying to get over the fact that there is any intelligent discussion going on in a thread titled \"O\'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future\".

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

PPS - Danno, it seems as though you\'ve gone back to your usually affable self. You were pretty worked up a few days back, I hope that all is well.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

I don\'t see how this is problematic. Are you saying that JT can never be a starting QB in the pro game?

I would say that Brooks is dumber than a sack of rocks, but I have a higher opinion of the sack of rocks. They wouldn\'t run out of bounds when we\'re trying to kill the clock at least. :P

This might really be the way to go. Danno you always have good insights, let me throw you a curve here. If we can\'t trust anything that Brooks says because that simply can\'t be what he really means, then don\'t we have to fill in the gaps to get what we think Brooks means? Seems like if we can\'t take what he says seriously, then we\'re back to square 1 and arguing over what we think he should mean depending on our opinion of Brooks? It all seems pretty subjective if we discount anything that comes out of the guys mouth. Not attack, I just don\'t know how else to try and evaluate him in terms of attitude, leadership, character, etc.
:question:

[Edited on 14/5/2004 by BrooksMustGo]

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

Some of yall are bein stupid. Aaron is the quarterback of this team, Aaron is going to be the quarterback of this team, Aaron\'s number is going to be hangin in the dome someday after he retires from this team. This is Aaron\'s team. It is dumb to be talkin about gettin rid of the best player to ever wear black and gold for a third string player who wasnt that good in college. Aaron needs more support from yall that say you are fans.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

Those reading this thread need to research the \"anybody but Brooks\" thread from a year or so ago, cause that\'s what this appears to be to me. This isn\'t for any particular love for JT, or thinking the Saints should\'ve drafted Eli or any particular reverece for Jake Delhomme...it\'s ANYBODY but Brooks, and the assesments regarding his play can only be justified by those who subscribe to the \"Anybody but Brooks\" logic... If any of you anti-Books folk were picked apart for your job they way you all pick Brooks apart (wild assumptions, misrepresentations, sarcastic jabs, etc) then you\'d all be unemployed.

Yes, Brooks fumbled the ball this past year. Find me ONE QB that didn\'t.
Yes, Brooks tossed some INT\'s, this past year. Find me ONE QB that didn\'t.

...let\'s do a little numbers comparison with ANY QB you guys think performed better. What you\'ll see is Brooks is just fine. ;)

[Edited on 14/5/2004 by saintfan]

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

BMG, I didn\'t mean to suggest that JT will never be a starting QB, it is just not likely that it will happen in the next year or two. Furthermore, as I said earlier, I don\'t see any reason to get excited about JT rather than any other QB who has showed some skill in other leagues. I guess, I just don\'t see why you\'d think he is the QB of the future over say Bouman or some other bench warmer from last year. Sure JT has some qualities, but lets at least see the preseason before we get so excited.

Not only that, the title implies that JT is the guy to take us to the promised land. There is NO reason to believe that right now. As far as reason not to believe it: 1. he has never played a down in the NFL, 2. success in a lesser league is not a good indicator of success in the NFL, and 3. he has no substantial experience with our offense.

Haz08, you cannot truly be suggesting that the fact that Brooks IS the QB right now means that he SHOULD be the QB. I agree that he gets some undue rippin\' on, but he also gets some due rippin\'. If there were in fact a better option, we should persue that, right? You wouldn\'t suggest that we simply go with the status quo just because it is the status quo, would you?

Saintfan, thanks for the reminder.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

It may be that this is the 7000th time this exact same topic has been rehashed.
Its pretty dang simple to me...
1.Aaron Brooks isn\'t the sharpest bulb in the shed.
2.Aaron Brooks has more than enough talent and skills to get the job done, including winning a superbowl.
3. On a list of all the things wrong with this team, AB is about 9th.
4. On a list of all the things right about this this team, he\'s about 4th.

We\'ve done this so many times its becoming boring.

In the modern day NFL you don\'t need a Joe Montana to be successful anymore. You can easily win with a middle of the road QB. And we\'ve got a guy thats probably in the top 10.
He\'s just an easy target for criticism because of frequent boneheaded comments.

If we had a Joe Montana everyone would be on Deuce\'s case for disappearing down the stretch for the 3rd straight year.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

actually, JT was drafted in the 6th round of the 2002 nfl draft, and if we let him go via restricted FA then we could recieve anywhere from a 6th round pick to a 1st n a 3rd, all depending on how much WE offer him





and when did this topic become about aaron brooks? the last time i checked, the topic was O\'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future, with the key word being FUTURE!!!

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

BMG is the one that made it about Brooks in his initial post on this thread. He might have said FUTURE. But, tommorow is the future and he wants to get rid of Brooks yesterday.

Anyway, here\'s what he said in his initial post: ;)

[Edited on 15/5/2004 by GumboBC]

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

Yep. If we could dump Brooks, then it\'s win-win all around. We get either good picks from the Raiders or Woodson or both, so we address our defense. We get rid of a problem player that we pay too much and we get to start a guy who is destined to be a star in this league. I can\'t see any downside to this whole scenario.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

Why would you want to dump a talented, big contract player that you claim is a team cancer, for a talented, equally big contract player who is a team cancer? Both have made equally bone-headed comments, Woodson more visibly anti-team at the worst moments. Moreover, why would you want to reduce the talent of our team at a position of maximum impact to address a position with minimum impact? Maybe we could trade Deuce for Janikowski too and get a top flight kicker in the league? Hell, the future of the Saints running game as we all know is Mike Carney!! He\'s never played a down, but I just know he\'s the second coming of Riggins.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

I don\'t believe for a second BMG wants to start O\'Sullivan. I do believe he wants Brooks gone, though. When BMG wants to be serious, he knows his football well.

He just likes to stir the pot a little bit. I believe his intention was not to seriously talk about O\'Sulivan. He just used O\'Sullivan as a \"bridge\" to bash Brooks.

I respond to his posts because I think he\'s funny.

Luckily for the Brooks bashers, he fumbled the ball some last year or they wouldn\'t have anything to bash him about. At all.

O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future
 

Believe me Billy, I\'m no Brooks fan, but he\'s better than our available alternatives or what we could realistically get as a replacement. He doesn\'t make my personal top 10 QB list (simply because of personal preferences in style), but he is a starting QB in this league and the best one we\'ve ever had.

I will always criticize any players weaknesses in conversation but still support them 100% come game day.