New Orleans Saints -

New Orleans Saints - (
-   Saints (
-   -   Lunch time ramble (

BillyC 01-09-2004 01:45 PM

Lunch time ramble
I think most everyone is in agreement that we have average coaches at best. My personal opinion is that Haslett has fallen short in many areas. However, I have always believed that the players(talent) had more to do with winning than coaching. I think most coaches would agree with that and I've heard many coaches state just that!

I think if we would have had another coach, like Bill Parcells, that we would have probably gotten to the playoffs. But, I don't believe coaching would have made us an elite team. Hey, if it's that simple, let's just keep the players we have and find us a coach. Right?

Right now, the coaching staff is the favorite "whipping boy", but let's not fool ourselves into thinking we will be a Super Bowl contender with the same exact players that we have.

I think there are two things that EVERYONE needs to understand about next years team:

1. Jim Haslett will be our coach.
2. Aaron Brooks will be our QB.

Now, some folks want one, or both of these 2 gone. I've said I would like a new coach, but ya know what? Since Haslett is going to be our coach, I will hope he improves on the things that I feel like he needs to. Of course, since I have no coaching experience, I understand that I could be wrong about Haslett and I indeed will be pulling for the man.

Next Subjects:

1. Success -- I've read some of those that say if a team doesn't make the playoffs, then the season is a failure! Well, that's your definition of success, not mine. Making the playoffs is not a success to me. Winning the Super Bowl is success and everything else and your a loser. There is only first place and loser. However, I said that only to make a point. Success to me happens on many different levels and it's too many for me to list. I just don't like when other members try to define the word success for me.

2. Excuses --It seems like everything Jim Haslett says is an EXCUSE to some members. Sure, he makes some excuses, but he says many of the same things most of the members here say. There is actually a lot of truth to what Jim Haslett says, I just think some are so ready to bash the guy that they don't really bother listening to what he has to say. Also there are members getting called out on here for making "excuses" for this team and it's coahes. Hell, if that's the case, I can say the samething for every post made about the Saints. What might be an excuse to you is a valid reason to someone else.

I'm now done with my lunch and if I have anymore brain strorms......I'll let ya know.

saintfan 01-09-2004 02:59 PM

Lunch time ramble
I agree with most of that Billy. Haz is the favorite \"whipping boy\" and Brooks is at the very least a close second...Haz because he\'s the head coach and Brooks because he\'s the high profile QB. That being said it is my opinion that simply because they occupy those positions doesn\'t necessarilly mean the problems start and/or stop with those two. Some say Brooks failed to lead this team, but I content he shouldn\'t have to. Some say that Haz lost this team, and I contend he hasn\'t.

It was a strange year for the Saints. I question some of the off season aquisitions as most others do too, but beyond that I accept the fact that overall the Saints are a young team that still needs to learn HOW to win games. In my opinion and for the most part they have the talent in place.

I don\'t put a lot of stock in ESPN or the media in general simply because those people are paid to promote controversy. I\'m as sure as I can possibly be that they sit around and discuss ways to do that very thing. It seems obvious to me, but some people regard what they see on TV or read in the paper as undeniable truth.

I find it quite interesting to read what people on this board and other sites say about Haz. He should be FIRED because he hasn\'t done this thing or that thing or the other thing. I\'ll submit the following from an article (link below) where Jim has pretty much indicated he\'s in tune with what people are saying...

Haslett, on the other hand, having watched his team underachieve for the third straight season, doesn\'t anticipate another off-season of roster overhauls, contending that the core group of players are in place to make a Super Bowl push.

We\'re at that point where we don\'t need to make a lot of roster changes,\" said Haslett, whose team missed the postseason for the third straight season. \"I think we need continuity. I think the amount (of off-season moves) has been a little more than we\'ve wanted the last couple of years. I think we\'re much better off than we have been.\"

With a total of 19 free agents, 13 unrestricted, re-signing defensive end Darren Howard appears to be the team\'s No. 1 priority during the off-season for the Saints.

The prevailing opinion seems to be we\'ve had too much turnover. Look to me like Haz agrees. People speak of all the money we spend, but I recall Loomis indicating that looking at numbers on a per season basis can be misleading because of the way contracts are structured these days. I\'d say being approximately 22 million under the cap next year with the talent on this team puts the Saints in pretty good shape! CB, LB, RB (backup) and DL are areas that need improvement, and I think the Saints are in position to do just that. I also think they will improve. I guess we\'ll just have to wait and see.

On the issue of success, I don\'t think one can hardly call the Saints a success this year. However, is success based on wins and losses or, as some people have indicated, the margin by which the team wins. Afterall, a win is a win is a win isn\'t it? Does it matter that a player didn\'t play his best game or that he made a few mistakes during the game or that the team won for whatever the reason, be it a dropped punt or whatever? I\'m reminded of the old saying about being able to please some of the people some of the time but not being able to please everybody all the time.

Now, when is an excuse an excuse and not a reason? I guess that depends upon which side of the fence a person is sitting. As Albert Einstien taught the world, EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE.

(link to article)

WhoDat 01-09-2004 04:37 PM

Lunch time ramble

have always believed that the players(talent) had more to do with winning than coaching.
Yeah BC, I know you\'ve always thought that and you know I\'ve always disagreed. ;) If you hold that statement true then what you\'re saying is that this Saints team is only moderately talented. Is that what you believe? It\'s not what the scouts and analysts have been saying. Most of them have been talking about how much of a letdown we are considering our talent level. I believe Pak posted something where an AFC scout said that we have as much talent as KC and a number of other teams in the playoffs right now.


let\'s not fool ourselves into thinking we will be a Super Bowl contender with the same exact players that we have.
I agree... BUT... if you add a stud MLB and a shutdown corner this offseason that changes in my mind. Who makes the personell decision for the Saints again? Hhhmmm... oh yeah, the coaches! ;)


Winning the Super Bowl is success and everything else and your a loser.
Hhmm, sounds like Parcells to me. \"You\'re as good as your record says you are.\" ;)

As to the excuses talk... well, OK maybe. If it\'s a game you\'re talking about, I\'ll give it to you. When it becomes a disappointing season, ehh, maybe, but you better rectify the problem next year. When it\'s three years of underperforming, yeah, it\'s whinning. Whether he\'s right or not doesn\'t matter to me. Knowing the problem is step one. Fixing it is step 2. Most of us can identify the problem AFTER it is a problem. Not so many of us can see those coming or rectify them. That\'s Haslett\'s job,and by your count, he\'s failing. ;)

JKool 01-10-2004 10:34 AM

Lunch time ramble
I have to admit that I sort of regret the whole Parcells\' thread - since I know I\'m getting tired of it. However, I just can\'t help myself... maybe its a bit too much sunshine?

Super Bowl or loser is NOT what Parcells\' said, since a team with an inferior record can win the Super Bowl - a wild card team can win just as easily as a division campion. Though, I do admit Billy\'s claim sounds LIKE Parcells\' claim. Of course, when talking about goodness in terms of wins or losses, both Parcells\' (read, WhoDat) and Billy are right. Only one team can win the Super Bowl, which as near as I can figure BETTER BE the only goal of every team - sure you can have intermediate goals, but that is all any team should be after. Thus, every other team is a loser in the Super Bowl.

JKool 01-10-2004 10:37 AM

Lunch time ramble
Here is another thing I probably don\'t want to start, but what has you guys convinced that either one of coaching or player talent is most important in winning? I guess I must have missed that dispute.

JKool 01-10-2004 10:39 AM

Lunch time ramble
I couldn\'t agree more with this:

I agree... BUT... if you add a stud MLB and a shutdown corner this offseason that changes in my mind. Who makes the personell decision for the Saints again? Hhhmmm... oh yeah, the coaches! - WhoDat

Though, I think that we probably need one more DT. Also, we need a GM who will help to control Haz\'s penchant for picking up players who are not as good as he thinks they are.

PS - Good rant.

WhoDat 01-10-2004 08:20 PM

Lunch time ramble
You did miss a big a$$ drag out knock down brawl about coaching vs talent. My opinion is that coaching is most important. Parity in this league makes teams so close that the difference between being average (read NO, Miami, etc.) and being a contender (you might read this as Dallas, NE, Carolina, Philly, etc.) is coaching. Good coaches put their players in the right spot to make plays. They get the best out of their players and find ways to win games.

Billy feels that talent is more important than coaching. He feels that players make coaches look good by making plays and executing better than others. I think his opinion is that the coach can only call the plays, but the players have to run them. I don\'t want to put words in his mouth, I\'m just trying to remember everything he said.

Does it really matter though? We all know he\'s.. uh.. mistaken. ;) Just playin\' B.

saintfan 01-10-2004 09:19 PM

Lunch time ramble
Some say the coach makes the difference. Others say the players are key.

I\'d like to submit Barry Switzer as an example of a coach that rode a veretan (and talented) team to the Superbowl. The general consensus is that they won the big game in spite of him.

Of course there\'s Parcells in Dallas this year and that\'s the other extreme.

Might it be something that depends on the specific situation? I\'d say so.

WhoDat 01-11-2004 12:34 PM

Lunch time ramble
Depends on the situation? Sure. I\'d say that in the past, you might have been more likely to see players carrying coaches. Back when players stayed in one place and it was possible to build dynasties, I\'d say that was more likely.

In today\'s NFL, I\'d say coaching matters more. Of the teams to have gone to the Super Bowl over the last 5 years or so, more see to have gotten there with coaching rather than a lot of talent. Sure, the Rams were loaded, and Baltimore and Tampa had great defenses, but New England, New York, even the Raiders? I don\'t think you can make the show without a combination of both good players and good coaching. Still, to me, if talent really mattered more, the Saints, Dolphins, and even the Skins or Bucs wouldn\'t have missed the playoffs. Teams like Dallas, Philly, Tenessee, even Carolina would not be in.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:22 AM.

Copyright 1997 - 2018 -