O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future

JKool · 05-14-2004, 01:04 PM

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.

JKool · 05-14-2004, 01:05 PM

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\".

JKool · 05-14-2004, 01:07 PM

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.

BrooksMustGo · 05-14-2004, 01:56 PM

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\".

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

Those were pretty dumb and selfish statements

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

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

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.

[Edited on 14/5/2004 by BrooksMustGo]

Haz08 · 05-14-2004, 03:00 PM

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.

saintfan · 05-14-2004, 03:26 PM

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]

JKool · 05-14-2004, 05:41 PM

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.

Danno · 05-14-2004, 10:58 PM

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.

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.

pakowitz · 05-15-2004, 02:36 AM

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.

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

Restricted free agency: From March 3 through a week before the draft, players with three years of experience can shop their services, but teams that sign them may have to pay a price related to in which round the player was picked when he came into the league. For example, a former third-round choice requires third-round compensation from the signing team. Teams that are losing a player, though, have a week to match a restricted offer sheet. Restricted free agents are offered a one-year tender at $628,000. Teams can further restrict movement of these players by increasing the tenders. By offering $1.368 million, the team can\'t lose that player unless they receive a first-round choice. For $1.824 million, the team puts the player\'s price at first- and third-round choices. A more exclusive tender has been created to prevent movement of a player with three years experience. It\'s rarely used, but it would count $2.324 million against the cap.

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!!!

GumboBC · 05-15-2004, 03:06 AM

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!!!

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:

We could unload Brooks to the Raiders for a ridiculously high draft selection or even manage Woodson out of the deal.

[Edited on 15/5/2004 by GumboBC]

05-14-2004, 01:04 PM	#21
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	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.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

05-14-2004, 01:05 PM	#22
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	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\".

05-14-2004, 01:07 PM	#23
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	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.

05-14-2004, 01:56 PM	#24
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	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\". I don\'t see how this is problematic. Are you saying that JT can never be a starting QB in the pro game? Those were pretty dumb and selfish statements 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 I wouldn\'t put much stock into any of his public comments. 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. [Edited on 14/5/2004 by BrooksMustGo]
	http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

05-14-2004, 03:00 PM	#25
Haz08 Rookie Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 22	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.
Haz08 Rookie Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 22

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

05-14-2004, 03:26 PM	#26
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	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]
	C'mon Man...

05-14-2004, 05:41 PM	#27
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	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.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

05-14-2004, 10:58 PM	#28
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	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. 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.

05-15-2004, 02:36 AM	#29
pakowitz The Dark Overlord Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,450	O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future 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. 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 Restricted free agency: From March 3 through a week before the draft, players with three years of experience can shop their services, but teams that sign them may have to pay a price related to in which round the player was picked when he came into the league. For example, a former third-round choice requires third-round compensation from the signing team. Teams that are losing a player, though, have a week to match a restricted offer sheet. Restricted free agents are offered a one-year tender at $628,000. Teams can further restrict movement of these players by increasing the tenders. By offering $1.368 million, the team can\'t lose that player unless they receive a first-round choice. For $1.824 million, the team puts the player\'s price at first- and third-round choices. A more exclusive tender has been created to prevent movement of a player with three years experience. It\'s rarely used, but it would count $2.324 million against the cap. 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!!!

05-15-2004, 03:06 AM	#30
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	O'Sullivan, Our Hope for a Super Future 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!!! 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: We could unload Brooks to the Raiders for a ridiculously high draft selection or even manage Woodson out of the deal. [Edited on 15/5/2004 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616