View Full Version : Raiders Sign Brooks
Bill Lundberg
03-22-2006, 05:58 PM
Raiders | Team agrees to terms with Brooks
Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:43:20 -0800
Jerry McDonald, of the Oakland Tribune, reports the Oakland Raiders have agreed to terms with free agent QB Aaron Brooks (Saints) on an undisclosed contract, according to two NFL sources.
Perfect Fit.
ROFL ROFL
Kclee
03-22-2006, 06:03 PM
Wow. That changes my pick in the CP draft. I don't think they bring him in to be back up. I got some thinking to do.
PunkinDrublic
03-22-2006, 06:14 PM
It amazes me how the faiders still think they can win in the same fashion they did in the 70s by picking up castoffs and making unconventional free agency moves. I hope Al Davis lives to be 120. Fuggin faiders and their fans can never get enough ridicule in my book.
CoMoChief
03-22-2006, 06:17 PM
OH NO!!!! :rolleyes:
recxjake
03-22-2006, 06:22 PM
well we can mark down 2 wins already for next year
milkman
03-22-2006, 06:25 PM
Wow. That changes my pick in the CP draft. I don't think they bring him in to be back up. I got some thinking to do.
I don't know.
I'm pretty sure they didn't bring him in to be a back up, but they could easily have brought him in to hold down the fort, per se, while they develop a rookie, like a Lienart, or Cutler.
He only signed a 3 year contract, and depending on signing bonus, he could easily be released after one season without too much effect on the cap.
Hammock Parties
03-22-2006, 06:25 PM
I wouldn't be so happy about this. Brooks can sling it and the Raiders have weapons.
I'd rather have Collins behind center in Oakland.
Dunit35
03-22-2006, 06:27 PM
I think Brooks is an ok QB. I would've been happy with him coming to KC.
milkman
03-22-2006, 06:27 PM
I wouldn't be so happy about this. Brooks can sling it and the Raiders have weapons.
I'd rather have Collins behind center in Oakland.
I agree with this.
Both can be inconsistent, but Brooks not nearly as bad as Collins.
He's also got escapability, while Collins is a statue.
Bwana
03-22-2006, 06:29 PM
Sweet! New Raider INT record this year?
ZootedGranny
03-22-2006, 06:35 PM
Looks like it'll be a bit harder to sweep this year. Just based on the law of averages, if we play Brooks twice a year, we'll get one of his good games as well as a complete meltdown.
Kclee
03-22-2006, 06:38 PM
I don't know.
I'm pretty sure they didn't bring him in to be a back up, but they could easily have brought him in to hold down the fort, per se, while they develop a rookie, like a Lienart, or Cutler.
He only signed a 3 year contract, and depending on signing bonus, he could easily be released after one season without too much effect on the cap.
:shrug: Huh. Well, they need defense even more than us. But Lienart would be a great QBOTF. I don't know if Al wants to wait. Then there is the V. Davis TE. But again, if they don't have the D, they are not going anywhere no mater how good the O is. Hopefully the next two picks clear things up a little bit for me.
Mile High Mania
03-22-2006, 06:43 PM
I think it's a good move when you consider they'll use the #7 pick most likely on one of the QBs in the draft. The rookie QB can sit on the bench and get up to speed while Brooks runs the show for at least a year.
charlyfreak
03-22-2006, 06:45 PM
I wouldn't be so happy about this. Brooks can sling it and the Raiders have weapons.
I'd rather have Collins behind center in Oakland.
i have to agree, but brooks does make a lot of mistakes as well.....
what the chiefs have to be concerned about is getting a better pass rush- and it won't matter as much who the opposing qb is.....
el borracho
03-22-2006, 06:52 PM
I'm not into doom and gloom offseason statements but another mobile QB in the AFC West is not good news for the Chiefs. Just more emphasis on how much we need a new Dline.
Marco Polo
03-22-2006, 07:26 PM
I agree...the Raiders could've done a lot worse
Spicy McHaggis
03-22-2006, 07:45 PM
I think it's a good move when you consider they'll use the #7 pick most likely on one of the QBs in the draft. The rookie QB can sit on the bench and get up to speed while Brooks runs the show for at least a year.
Alright but I'd have to have a strict rule against Brooks giving the rookie pointers.
gblowfish
03-22-2006, 08:09 PM
I'd rather have Mel Brooks at QB.
JBucc
03-22-2006, 08:22 PM
Good signing imo. Brooks has all the tools....well except for a brain..and that's pretty important...but he's in Oakland so he fits right in.
RedThat
03-22-2006, 08:30 PM
I wouldn't be so happy about this. Brooks can sling it and the Raiders have weapons.
I'd rather have Collins behind center in Oakland.
The thing I don't like about having to face him 2x a year is he is very mobile. He can beat you with his legs. Where Kerry Collins can't.
He is a slight upgrade over Collins imo. They still share the same problem however, and that is, making bad decisions with the football. Brooks will do that. He has a tendency to hold onto the football too long, making costly mistakes in critical situations.
Raiders Sign Brooks
I imagine the Raiders signing with an "X".
FAX
Raiders | Team agrees to terms with Brooks
Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:43:20 -0800
Jerry McDonald, of the Oakland Tribune, reports the Oakland Raiders have agreed to terms with free agent QB Aaron Brooks (Saints) on an undisclosed contract, according to two NFL sources.
Perfect Fit.
ROFL ROFL
Our secondary just got better
Reaper16
03-22-2006, 10:06 PM
This could actually work out well for them, as he has a great physical skillset. Of course, I then have to think of the times he's passed the ball backwards or numerous other Plummer-esque bumblings.
Eleazar
03-22-2006, 10:56 PM
So free agency is going to be good to the Chiefs after all...
Blackened
03-23-2006, 01:43 PM
I don't know.
I'm pretty sure they didn't bring him in to be a back up, but they could easily have brought him in to hold down the fort, per se, while they develop a rookie, like a Lienart, or Cutler.
He only signed a 3 year contract, and depending on signing bonus, he could easily be released after one season without too much effect on the cap.
It was a two year contract. Art stated that he was brought in as depth,
and was not promised the starting job. That said, he will compete with Walter in camp and there is a good chance he will win the job.
As far as the Raiders drafting a QB, nothins has changed..Al is in love with Young, and dont be suprised if we trade up to get him...
Gonzo
03-23-2006, 02:18 PM
Well, at least the Raiders finally found their running game.
It was a two year contract. Art stated that he was brought in as depth,
and was not promised the starting job. That said, he will compete with Walter in camp and there is a good chance he will win the job.
As far as the Raiders drafting a QB, nothins has changed..Al is in love with Young, and dont be suprised if we trade up to get him...
Why trade up when nobody else above you will draft him?
Blackened
03-23-2006, 02:35 PM
Why trade up when nobody else above you will draft him?
Thats what I'm saying too..
but alot of mocks have him going in the top 4...The rumor is, We have Offered the Saints our #1 and 2 and Cooper to move up to the 2 slot....But who knows, then we might take Lienart, or Bush .. I pray it doesn't happen.....
StcChief
03-23-2006, 02:51 PM
Maybe a change of scenery (which stadium do we play in again this week) for Brooks will be good,
but the Faiders......
Mobile but tends to make alot of mistakes
vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.