2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

I have said this in a few other posts, and it seems as though everyone is ignoring my statement. So I'll say it one more time, and NOT to tick anyone off, just an analysis. So, please, I am unarmed...... :cool3:

Hurricane Katrina withstanding, we HAVE been here before. Brand new coach and staff; 50% of our roster brand new; playoff season; heismann running back; hope for the future. You might think I am referring to the 06 season, but I am not. I am referring to 2000.

Ditka screws us with the Williams draft trade in 99, and then proceeds to go 3-13 on the season. We get a new coach in Jim Haslett, and he inspires the team to great things, by winning the south, going to the play offs, and beating the "all powerful" Rams, and then getting destroyed by the Vikings, the next week in Minnesota. BUT, we do win our first ever play off game, something Mora could never do.

Every Saints fan on the planet went nuts, and we were all in the belief, that this was a sign of great things to come. After that magical season, we ended up missing the play offs, for five straight years. Amazing talent on offense, and defense. Never reaching their full potential, and always falling just short of breaking out.

Now, up to date; coming off of a 3-13 season; new coach and staff; 50% of our roster brand new; play offs coming up; heismann running back; new hope for bright future. I'm not one for deja vu, but come on!

I will not get over excited this time. Call me whatever you want, and tell me that I'm not a "real" fan. By some of the logic in here, maybe I'm not. I am, however, a "real-listic" fan. Which means, as far as the season goes, I am happy about it, not exstatic, but happy. Many teams go to the play offs, but only one wins the Super Bowl. That's what the team wants, so that's what I want. We've been to the play offs, more than once, so this isn't new for us. Anything less than a championship, is just..... well, less.

Please don't flame me.... I love this room, and love the discussions. This is just, what I think. I apologize if this observation makes you angry. I just want to hear what everyone thinks about it.

RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

With all due respect, you're wrong and here's why...

The Saints won in 2000 with a 2nd string QB, AB at QB.
And a second string RB, remember...Terry Allen at RB along with Chad Morton
Willie Jackson was our second leading receiver with 37 catches
The offense was no where as talented.
Even the defense gave up 1 more yard per play in 2000 that the 2006 squad has this year.
The 2000 team started 1-3
This team 3-1

In 2000, The Saints needed a miraculous comeback to defeat the defending SB champion Rams (in STL) in their first meeting of the season.

They also beat SF in SF thanks in part to a blown out of bounds TD run call (in favor of NO) on 4th down.

The 200 team went 3-3 down the stretch.
This year's team will have to lose their last 2 to duplicate that.
They won't
The 2000 coach was an idiot. Setting up a trend of late season collapses.
A so-called defensive genius who's team gave up 367 points that season.
The competition was also different.
In 2000,
ATL was 6-10, CAR 7-9 and ATL 4-12. The Rams were only 10-6
Bears 5-7, Chargers 1-15, Cardinals 3-13
All teams NO beat that year
A combined "not very good" 36-72

Sure this year's team has beaten CLE 4-10 and TB 3-11
But every other win has come against a team that is STILL alive for a play-off berth.
GB, ATL, PHI, SF, DAL, NYG and CAR (calling my shot)

The Saints in 2000 were the right team at the right time...
AFTER ALL...
"HAKIM DROPPED THE BALL"

This team the 2006 Saints will be the No. 2 seed in the NFC.
They have been the second best team in the NFC all year.

i am happy with this team and I am happy with that 2000 team. I do not dislike Haslett or Brooks. They did well. No team goes to the playoffs every year. They were always in the playoff hunt(not last year or course), and that is all you can ask for. I have no hopes for nest year, because of this year, I just cheer for them.

Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

Well, we just let a last place team, in an overall weak division come into our house and outplay us. I don't buy into the let down game scenario, we just sucked. If we can do it against the Redskins, then it could happen again when there's alot more at stake. This Sunday's game against the Giants is going to tell us alot about our coaching staff, as well as our team's overall character. We'll see.

All of my similarities are based on team structure, and what the season before it looked like, not the exact statistics. We were a 3-13 team in 99, and we had a new coach, with almost all new players, and had a great run, in 2000. Only to be let down the next year. I'm not sure if you were around during the Mora years, but that was equally frustrating, getting so close every year, and then tanking in the play offs. We had an AWESOME defense back then, and a mediocre offense. If it hadn't been for Anderson's big foot, we would have lost alot of games. If defense wins championships, then I don't know what happened there.

My point is, that we have been to the play offs before, and now it's time to expect more. I don't think of that as a bad thing. We can all say whatever we want, but when we won that first play off game, every Saints fan everywhere was on cloud nine, and high on expectations. No matter what he did after that, Haslett was the man that day, in my eyes. He did something that no other coach before him had done, or after him......so far.

RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

Trust me, if any Saint fan is not thinking about the 2000 season, even in the farthest point in the back of their mind they are kidding themselves. I think the main difference is we have Brees. He is the torch bearer and he IS the Leader of this team, THIS year. I don't expect them to do anything, but I do Hope, Pray, and have the Faith that they will be victorious.

Re: RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

I would agree with this asessment. Brees is a major upgrade from Brooks. He has a will to win, that Brooks never seemed to have.

Another funny thing about the 2000 team, that everyone seems to forget, is that Jeff Blake was our starter for most of that year, not Brooks. If Blake doesn't get hurt in the Raider game, who knows what happens. Record wise, Blake had the better numbers.

Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

Honestly I see very few similarities between the 2000 team and the 06 team. Like someone said earlier in the post, this year's team has been far more consistent. We've been winning the entire year. We've maintained what we started. Most notably we have an MVP canidate at the most important position in football, QB. That is a huge difference in and of itself. We have highly talented players at all of our skill positions, and not a bunch of also-rans Joe Horn was the only true offensive star on that '00 team. Right now we have Colston, Bush, Henderson. Deuce, a great blocking FB in Karney...I'm sorry...offensively speaking this '06 team is FAR more potent.


We lost to the Redskins...true enough. It was really our first "letdown" of the season. Carolina was a much better team when they beat us. Pittsburgh is suffering from being in a powerful division, and Cincy is playoff-worthy.

Back to the Redskins...if you look at the current state of the NFL you would see that the same things are happening all over the league. The Bears just had 31 put up on them at home and were put in a position to win that game due to a blown call. The Colts lost to Tennessee. The Jags lost to Houston. Cincy lost to TB. I could go on. Good teams lose to bad teams every week. This week it happened to us. There's no evidence that this would happen again. As Chris Berman says, that's why they play the games.

Unfortunately we have to lose games from time to time. Yeah we could lose our first game of the playoffs, or we could win all of our playoffs games and win the Super Bowl.

I don't think the Washington game is an indication of one thing or another. It was just one game. We didn't repeat any mistakes that we made in previous games. They just seemed to be playing with no emotion...like they thought they could win just by showing up. And there was every reason to think this. I hate to say we came out flat but that's what happened.

RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

The NFC East is an "overall weak" division????
Your Kidding me?
Three teams are still alive for play-off berths.
Combined the NFC east is tied with the North for the most wins against NFC teams (22) than any other division... And that's only b/c the Bears have 10 wins.
The NFC East combined has 29 wins which is more than any other division in the NFC.
Please...
The only thing that is "overall weak" is your opinion.

RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

sorry for the aggresion,
but I am just sick of the losing mentality We have...
This team is different.
And BTW
Who cares about next year?

Countless times this season I have said to myself during games, "here we go, this is when the Saints I know... roll over, lose their composure, crumble and blow it."
Each time they have proved me wrong.
Sunday was a great example,
During that last drive, I BELIEVED we were going to score. Didn't think we would turn it over on downs or throw an INT.
I never felt that way with Haslett.
Sorry I guess I believe...

RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

Ok Frank, we'll agree to disagree. This topic was never meant to start static, just to compare the two teams, and the similarities, of the situation. Maybe that's the way I should have put it, the situations are very similar, not the teams themselves.

I will not lie, I thought Haslett was a breath of fresh air, after the horrible years with Ditka at the helm. He did some amazing things with the team in the first few seasons. Of course the fresh air turned to the smell of the cat food plant, outside Moss Pointe, the last two seasons he was there. So with that analogy, everytime something bad happens, I figuretively roll up the window, and hold my breath till I get to Pascagoula. Sunday's game was one of those times, along with losses to Pitt, Baltimore, and Cincy. The Carolina game did not shock me as much, because they always play us tough.

I apologize to everyone, that I am not "there" yet, on believing completely in this team. Maybe it's the scars of watching in horror, as so many Saints teams of the past crashed and burned, just when I thought things were looking up. We as Saints fans, have had to come up with our own definitions of success, over the years. What we consider triumphs, the rest of the football world looks at, as futility. We look forward to making the play offs, while other organizations, like the Patriots, Broncos, and Bears, look forward to winning the Superbowl.

I would just really like a season with no doubts, but it is hard for me, because of past experiences, and the fact that there's no such thing as a season without problems.

Re: RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

I agree with this part. I started a thread a while back saying the opportunity was there RIGHT NOW, and it needed to be capitalized on.

Let's revisit NFL history among the Super Bowl matchups over the last 10 years...

1996--Green Bay / New England...........Green Bay is one of the examples of those teams that build themselves up to the point of a Super Bowl, after falling short previous seasons. They had been to the playoffs, and finally overcame the likes of San Francisco and Dallas to reach the top of the NFC. New England, also, had been built up by Parcells. Would there be a "next season" for New England though?

1997--Green Bay / Denver.............Green Bay had built themselves up the prior year and won the Super Bowl.......Denver had been building and building, but underacheiving in the playoffs. This was finally the year they won it all.

1998--Denver/Atlanta.........Denver had been established, and won once again. Atlanta had turned their fortunes around under Dan Reeves. Would their be a "next season" for Atlanta though, after falling short in this Super Bowl?

1999--St. Louis/Tennessee............Both teams literally came out of nowhere. St. Louis wins it all. Would Tennessee build on coming up 1-yard-short and return to the Super Bowl?

2000--Baltimore/New York.........Both teams came from nothing......Baltimore wins. Would New York get back to the Super Bowl after this setback?

2001--St. Louis/New England.........St. Louis had been established a few years prior........New England came out of nowhere with Brady as QB to win it.

2002--Raiders/Bucs.........Bucs are one of those rare examples again of a team chipping, chipping, chipping and finally overcoming an obstacle and winning it all. How have the Raiders done since this Super Bowl?

2003--New England/Carolina........New England has basically established their nucleus 2 years prior. The out-of-nowhere Carolina Panthers make it a damn close Super Bowl, but fall short. Have they gotten back yet?

2004--New England/Philadelphia........New England is established, Philadelphia had been chipping, chipping, chipping but fell short.

2005--Pittsburgh/Seattle.........Pittsburgh had a monster season in 2004, and took it a step further in 2005 with a Super Bowl win (despite actually having fewer wins). Jury is still out on whether Seattle's current nucleus will take it a step further and win it all or not, but it doesn't look like it'll happen this year. I should also point out that Pittsburgh returned with basically the same team they had last year, and will be lucky to finish above .500 this year.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So over 10 years, we can say Green Bay, Denver, Tampa Bay, and Pittsburgh have been the only teams to get a fire going, and finally bust the door down by winning a Super Bowl title. That's 4 out of 10. The rest of the teams pretty much came out of nowhere, and in rare cases such as New England, used that quick success to propel themselves to future championships. Also, look at the teams that fell short in those Super Bowls. In those 10 seasons, only New England has returned to a Super Bowl after losing (and that was 5 years later, under a completely different coaching staff, and a different QB).

This is why it is imperative for the Saints to not even worry about "next year" until next year. There is work to be done THIS year, and a golden opportunity laying ahead.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

I think, myself, I would like to get the team in a situation, where we have consistent play off trips, year after year. Kind of like the Colts. They seem to be in the play offs every year, and have an amazing nucleus of talent on offense.

By the way, Carolina was in the NFC title game last year werent' they? I believe Atlanta was in the title game the year before. So they might not have went back to the SB, but they were in the thick of things in January.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

Would you take a super bowl win and 3 years of missing the playoffs?
5 years?
10?

I would take 10 for one Sunday win in February

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

Frank, calm down buddy. Believe it or not, we are on the same side here. Ok, I left out, that I would also like to win the Superbowl this year. I am not saying I would rather go to the play offs, and NOT win any championships. I just mean in the future, my ideal situation, would be at least going to the play offs, and having a competitive team every season.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

I'll give you that one on Carolina, but Atlanta was pretty much a different team in 2004 than the 1998 team that went to the Super Bowl. The 98 team had Reeves as coach, Chandler as QB, and Jamal Anderson at RB...whereas the 2004 team had Mora Jr as coach, Vick as QB, and Dunn at RB. Pretty much a different nucleus.

Anyway, I see what you are saying, and to elaborate on your statement, Tennessee was another team that actually had some legitimate playoff chances after their Super Bowl defeat. However, it still leads credence to what I'm saying, which is the fact that the window of opportunity only opens so far, and only stays open for so long...

Let's hope they get back on track starting Christmas Eve..

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

I will agree with you there. The Giants will be a tough test I believe. But a passable one.

Wouldn't you agree that out of all the Superbowl teams, that actually won, it seems as though Tampa Bay fell the farthest the fastest? Wow. They had a helluva defense, that just disbanded after the Superbowl. Which once again proves your guys' point, that you have to strike while the iron is hot.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

Probably so. Denver has only had one losing season since Elway retired, and the Packers had several good seasons after they won the Super Bowl. New England has only missed the playoffs once since their first Super Bowl win, and even then they had a 9-7 record. Baltimore's had some chances. The Rams hung around after Martz took over. So up to this point, yeah Tampa is probably the ones who fell fastest. They had a good season last year (their only winning season since that Super Bowl), but fell by the wayside once again.

I agree it's hard not to compare the 2000 Saints to this team. But like others have said, there are many differences.
I seem to remember we played some pretty sorry teams in 2000. And in many of the wins, we just lucked out. I still say if Hakim hadn't dropped that punt the outcome of the wildcard game would have been different.
Iin the second game against St. Louis we where owned, and Denver spanked us good..... didn't Mike Anderson set a new rookie rushing record that game?
And Brooks was just phenomenal in the games he played..... problem is he never got any better.
Haslett was very emotional and that emotion carried over to the players. If one word described the 2000 Saints, I think "Over Achievers" does it.
Anyway, I have a summary of that 2000 season on my website HERE

This year, we still have a way to go, but we building on more than just emotion. Payton is instilling discipline in them. A trait the Haslett teams sorely lacked.
I just wouldn't get to down about the negatives of this season. I'm just waiting to see where we are next year at this time to tell how permanent the changes are.

Not to screw anything up but I wouldn't be disappointed with a playoff loss this season. I mean, after getting some key things like a LB, CB, and other needs we'd be even better for the next yr

who cares about next year?

i do... cuz starting in january, the saints will be playing in the Playoffs!!! :D

Re: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints
 

First and farmost, they won the West it wasn't the South just yet. Comparing this Saints team to the 2000 team is really unfair, because the shape Ditka left us in was unbelievable at best. No draft picks, no young talent to build on, a rediculous QB situation, i could go on and on, but you get my drift. Haslett was defensive minded, Coach Payton is offensive minded, Bush, Colston, that young o-line, and oh yeah, Drew Brees is no Aaron Brooks. We have draft picks and a staff that obviously knows how to use them, so please DO NOT, i repeat, DO NOT compare 2000 to 2006, because doing so would be so unfair. GO NFC SOUTH DIVISION CHAMPION SAINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!