WhoDat

OK, the same rules apply as last time. Don't elaborate about why you answered one way or the other, just answer. I'm changing it up, only two options this time.

1. I think Haslett should be the head coach of the Saints in 2004. (T/F)

2. I think Aaron Brooks should continue to be the starting QB of the New Orleans Saints. (T/F)

3. AB helps this team more than he hurts it. (T/F).

4. The single biggest problem with this team is: (Fill in the blank - ONE word, or a couple, not a paragraph).

Go to town boys.

frankeefrank

1. No

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Attitude... When Haslett came in he told reporters how important it was to change the attitude frmo a losing one into a winning one.
What heppened to that goal?

FrenzyFan

1. F (I like JH, but he continues to back AB and that is unforgivable after these three years)

2. F. (We should trade him quickly, perhaps to Arizona?)

3. F. (AB does not hurt this team only when Deuce can carry the offense. When someone puts nine in the box - as the Bucs just did - and AB has to pass....)

4. Brooks (He personally killed us yesterday.)

BlackandBlue

1. F- But who cares what I think- he\'s going to be the head coach next year, regardless

2. F- After yesterday\'s game, I am no longer riding the fence on our QB

3. F- He\'s a goofy looking tumor

4. Stupidity- not just AB, there are others that make some real boneheaded plays.

jared21

F b/c if he is here brooks will still be QB
F Get this fumbling bumbling want to be qb out of Here
F um lets see look at yesterdays game and tell me
BROOKS haslett venturi mcarthy!!!

[Edited on 8/12/2003 by jared21]

canucksaint

F-stop backing bad players
F- if he could hold on to the ball, then he can hold on to his job
F- makes good plays, but makes HUGE errors
No Heart

progress

1. T

2. F

3. F

4. Brooks = turnover, Tebuckey = blown coverage

BrooksMustGo

1. F -- Cuts productive players for being \"cancers\", Fights tooth and nail to keep or get players that hurt the team.

2. F -- He was bad before yesterday

3. F -- Lackadasical, dumb and won\'t accept responsibility. The rest of the team emulates him.

4. Losing is tolerable. It\'s OK to lose as long as Brooks stays at QB and Haz gets players he wants. Who cares if Haz and Willie Roaf like each other if Willie Roaf could have played like he\'s playing in KC right now. The whole deal with Haz is that winning is not more valuable than his comfort level. I can\'t understand that.

[Edited on 8/12/2003 by BrooksMustGo]

http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

JKool

1. No. He had his chance. He took us to the playoffs once, but that gift has not been reproduced. His ability aside, everyone has lost faith.

2. Yes. Though we should have an offseason shoot-out for the starting position.

3. Yesterday he shure did. However, I don\'t think I\'m in a position to say one way or another about all the games and into the future. I\'m not making a point here, I\'m just saying that I don\'t know.

4. GMing. I think we need to do a better job of getting talent here and keeping it. Sure our coach didn\'t help any, but a strong GM can control a coach. I like all the arguments that we are not doing what we should with the talent we have. However, people must be saying something about POTENTIAL talent, since I haven\'t seen a lot of this so called talent on the field this season. Talent on paper is not what we want; we want on field talent - something that is difficult to predict, understand, or even rate until players are on the field TOGETHER (I\'m a big fan of chemistry arguments, in case you hadn\'t guessed).

Sorry, I couldn\'t resist the paragraph, but it looks like I wasn\'t alone (and that is why it is fun here).

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

BlackandBlue

*twitch* *shiver* *twitch twitch*