Was Loomis not Haslett responsible for starting an injured Brooks over Delhomme?
 

One of the biggest criticisms of Jim Haslett was his decision to start an injured hobbled Aaron Brooks at the end of the 2002 season over getting a look at a young healthy Jake Delhomme. The Saints lost their final 3 games and barely missed the playoffs. Delhomme went on to take the Carolina Panthers to the Super Bowl in 2003.

Everyone assumed that this was Jim Haslett's decision, but I think 2023 provides some new evidence. Mickey Loomis became the Saints GM in summer 2002. One of his first big moves was giving Aaron Brooks a record at the time $36 million contract in September 2002 that set the market for Tom Brady's first extension with the Patriots. Only a couple months later Brooks was injured and perhaps it was not Haslett who was hesitant about benching him, perhaps it was the guy who signed him to an early and big extension in season.

Now in 2023 Mickey Loomis gave Derek Carr a $150 million contract and Carr has faced many injuries and struggled as the Saints are in tight playoff contention. Now a new defensive minded coach is catching all the grief for refusing to hand the ball to any of his backups.

In light of these developments, I am starting to wonder if Loomis was behind this not Haslett or Allen. Who would it have reflected poorly on if just 2-3 months after giving Aaron Brooks a $36 million extension his backup led the team to the playoffs, a hometown boy, who captured fans attention, created a QB controversy, and possibly drew comparisons at the time to Tom Brady as a young QB taking over late in the season and proving a playoff hero? This development might have strengthened Jim Haslett's position as a head coach while weakening Mickey Loomis as GM for giving Aaron Brooks an in-season extension. As the money man, Loomis had the most to lose if the biggest contract in team history immediately came into question.

In 2023 with Derek Carr we are in a similar situation. 2 concussions in 3 weeks is no joke. Carr will have an amazing 2 quarters here and there, but then a poor 6+ quarters, and is often playing hurt. People blame DA and Carmichael, but the common element is Mickey Loomis. He gave Brooks money. He gave Carr money. He is paranoid about moves that could make him look bad and prefers to stick with the incumbent unless an injury is so bad that they absolutely cannot take the field.

Sticking with Brooks was a sign of stubborn loyalty and sticking with the plan no matter what unless it absolutely cannot be done. Jeff Blake did not have a big contract and could not take the field. Jameis Winston did not have a big contract and could not take the field for a few games at least. Whenever we had QBs with big contracts signed by Loomis they have taken the field whenever they could no matter what. And when we had Brees, we did not draft a successor who could create any controversy. Could it be that keeping Delhomme on the bench, starting Carr every game through 3 major injuries, and failing to draft a successor to Brees were all a product of Loomis not wanting his big money QB contracts second guessed by a QB controversy? It Mickey Loomis incapable of pivoting at the most important position on the field, because once he has written a big check and dragged down that cell in his excel spreadsheet, he can't making any changes?

Re: Was Loomis not Haslett responsible for starting an injured Brooks over Delhomme?
 

I don't know if Loomis really calls the shots regarding who plays or who sits, but what I do know is there has been a ton of mistakes at the QB position since he has taken over as GM. To your point, Brooks was a good QB but absolutely wasn't better than Blake, and then the entire Delhomme thing was an even worse mistake by allowing him to move on and not starting him. When it comes to Brees, great signing. When Brees got old, that was another big miss by Loomis. Outside of the claim of just missing on Mahommes, did not make any significant efforts to address the position. Even had the opportunity to replace a broken Brees with Brady and still wouldn't do it. Fast forward to today, no idea what the thought process behind signing Carr was, my best guess is he was the best of a crappy group of free agents available? Going to be interesting to see what happens this off-season, my best guess is he does nothing to improve from Carr, we shall see.

Re: Was Loomis not Haslett responsible for starting an injured Brooks over Delhomme?
 

I’ll never forget watching Brooks come in and devastate the “Greatest Show On Turf”… we have seen and shall see NOTHING that even holds a candle to that by Carr. Not even close.

Re: Was Loomis not Haslett responsible for starting an injured Brooks over Delhomme?
 

Someone send a reporter out to Delhomme's horse ranch or wherever he is now and find out!

Re: Was Loomis not Haslett responsible for starting an injured Brooks over Delhomme?
 

Who would be a good GM? Ireland already failed at that once and we need to get away from nepotism in a bad way. Mickey isn't an Alpha. DA isn't an Alpha. PC certainly isn't an Alpha! We badly need an Alpha male somewhere in this dysfunctional organization.

Re: Was Loomis not Haslett responsible for starting an injured Brooks over Delhomme?
 

Maybe Gayle isn’t an alpha enough owner, to make us an Alpha Team.

Re: Was Loomis not Haslett responsible for starting an injured Brooks over Delhomme?
 

I don't think we necessarily need "alpha's" in all positions. We may just need very bright people who have enough leadership sense to make it work. Mike McDaniel in Miami or the late Mike Leach command respect because of their bold genius. Think of a guy like Gary Kubiak when he was in Denver - not alpha material but a guy with great football smarts who ran things well. Or the great Tom Osborne ... hardly gave off alpha vibes but my god people ran through walls for him because they trusted his approach and resolve.

Re: Was Loomis not Haslett responsible for starting an injured Brooks over Delhomme?
 

And we have… Dennis Allen.

Re: Was Loomis not Haslett responsible for starting an injured Brooks over Delhomme?
 

It's a good question, but I seem to remember reading an article where Haslett mentioned regretting how that was handled. He made it sound like it was his decision. That said, there does seem to be a pattern.

Re: Was Loomis not Haslett responsible for starting an injured Brooks over Delhomme?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by neugey (Post 988542) I don't think we necessarily need "alpha's" in all positions.

I agree. But, we do need an Alpha somewhere! :doh: