CB signed
 

Saints sign Fred Booker

January 13, 2004



The New Orleans Saints have signed free agent and ex-LSU cornerback Fred Booker.

Booker (5-9, 188lbs.) has spent the last couple of years in NFL Europe and the AFL as well as stints with the 49ers, Eagles and Redskins.

Booker started every game during his junior and senior seasons at LSU and appeared in 44-of- 45 games.

In 2000, as a senior, had two interceptions and finished sixth on the team with 42 tackles (four for loss).

For his collegiate career, Booker had 126 tackles (83 solo), four interceptions, and two fumble recoveries.





[Edited on 14/1/2004 by saintz08]

CB signed
 

Thank goodness! Now we don\'t have to fret about obtaining one of those GOOD CBs in free agency! :o

CB signed
 

Welcome to the offseason in New Orleans. When does FA officially open? March?

CB signed
 

He is a homer .

Here comes trouble with BEAT .... :P

CB signed
 

Thank God we signed a 5\'9\" , 188lb. cornerback!! That shows we want to get physical with those new prototype wide receivers the NFL is becoming so fond of now. :casstet: :casstet: :casstet:

CB signed
 

A local boy from Hammond. He went to school at LSU. Did time in NFLE. Undrafted. I figure you guys would be drooling over \'ol \"Flossy\". The only question now is how long it takes before ya\'ll start hollerin\' about benching Fred Thomas.

CB signed
 

Local boy or not, I want to go FORWARD! I\'ll pick a team full of aliens that can help us win the big games over a team full of homeboys that help us stay at the same level we are at the moment. I\'m just a little tired of \'projects\' when we can actually go for known, proven talent in free agency that can definitely help us.

CB signed
 

\"A team full of aliens\"...now that\'s just damned funny! LMAO

:P

CB signed
 

He is an instructional tool , to teach Brooks to throw over the corner to the receiver rather then under the corner at the receivers shoestrings .

He should be very good for Brooks confidence ..... :P

CB signed
 

OK \'lectron08, where exactly do you stand on the whole Brooks issue?