Ouch - Hammer meet Nail

Danno · 01-13-2004, 01:54 PM

Maybe he is looking only at the negative side of things, but why would he look at the positives? What positives have come as a result of the last three seasons? This team has been defined by mediocrity and underachievement over the last three years. There\'s really no other way to put it.

So I guess the only articles we should see are strickly overwhelmingly negative hatchet jobs? Gee, haven\'t we seen about 34 years of the same exact article. Its old and worn out, like the Jake debates. We had a bad season but there are some positive reasons to look forward to next season. But you\'ll never hear DeShazier mention them. Its against his anti-Saint agenda.
\"WE SUCK, AND WE ALWAYS WILL, SO WHY EVEN BOTHER, YOU BUNCH OF IDIOT SAINT FANS.\"

WhoDat · 01-13-2004, 02:03 PM

You\'re right Danno. Let\'s talk about why the Saints will be 12-4 next year. Ready? You start.

Danno · 01-13-2004, 02:05 PM

You\'re right Danno. Let\'s talk about why the Saints will be 12-4 next year. Ready? You start.

OFFENSE-
1. RB- We have a top 5 talent in McAllister and a good FB. Add a dependable back-up and this unit is as good as it gets. A multi-dimensional fullback would be a nice addition.
2. QB- I see Brooks as a top 10 guy. Solid back-up in Bouman. A developing 3rd QB in fiesty emotional O\'Sullivan who reminds me of a young Jake. Definitely not the weak link on this team.
3. Good O-line with young interior. Bentley, Holland, Jacox (at center) gives us a solid interior that should be a better run-blocking unit next year. Riley and Gandy played well enough at tackle to hold their own. An upper middle-of-the-pack unit that should improve next year. Not great, but not bad either.
4. Best TE group here in a while. Boo will only get better, Conwell was solid after a shakey start. The youngster Hilton may develop into a weapon either in 2004 or 2005.
5. WR- Horn still has a few solid years left. Stallworth\'s nagging injury problems should start decreasing as it has with other WR\'s who had similar probs. Pathon is a versatile, dependable WR that can play all 3 positions well. Lewis was much better than I ever thought he would be. Gardner is still a 2-3 year project with HUGE upside. Add a sure handed possession type free-agent and this unit should rebound to be one of the better ones around. They were the weak link this year on Offense and I feel they know it, and better improve.
DEFENSE
6. DL- Howard, Grant, Sullivan will all be better. Add a true nose DT and this unit should dominate for years to come.
7. LB- The weakness of this unit will be addressed this offseason. There WILL be a proven stud added to this unit before the season starts. I can see 2 new starters (maybe all 3) on opening day in 2004. It\'ll be exciting to see what they do. Hodge must improve, I think he will. Grant may be the stud in the middle we need. Although I\'d move him outside. Between Rodgers, Ruff, and Allen one should step up and improve.
8. CB- Its no secret that we have one solid corner, and 3 seviceable nicklebacks. I see a solid vet and a young stud added to this unit. Thomas will start (and he should) but I see a new guy on the other side. Its possible that Thomas may be the only keeper on this unit for 2004.
9. SS- Mel Mitchell should be back to 100%. If he was truly good enough to put Bellamy on the bench then it\'ll be exciting to see what this guy can do.
10. FS- OK. I know he was hammered all year, and it was justified, but he did start to play better as the year went on. I think he will improve quite a bit. His poor tackling technique has at least been admitted to. A copy of Tackling for Dummies and some additional attention should be the recipe for improvement. Whether he finally justifies his salary remains to be seen but I do think he\'ll be much improved.

GEE, NOW THAT WASN\'T TOO HARD WAS IT?

[Edited on 13/1/2004 by Danno]

ScottyRo · 01-13-2004, 02:21 PM

Nice assessment Danno.

12-4 might be stretching it a bit, but with the talent on this team there is no reason why we shouldn\'t be at least a little optimistic about any new season. It may be unlikely, but even if Haslet is not a good coach, the players COULD play above his level.

In 2003, the Saints were a few bad referee decisions and a couple ball control issues away from 11-5. I maintain that the biggest probem was play calling, not performance, since even with the drops and the mental errors they were in position to win at least 11 games this year.

WhoDat · 01-13-2004, 04:23 PM

I was being sarcastic...

Here\'s an even more fun idea - let\'s see how many of those reasons you just listed match what people said this time last offseason. Won\'t that be fun? You talk about DeShazier sounding like a broken record... I think I\'ve heard all the reasons why the Saints will be 12-4 a few too many times myself - especially since that kind of record has only happened ONCE in our 35+ year history. DeShazier may be negative, but at least he\'s right. We can blow sunshine up each other\'s a$$, but it\'s all talk. The Saints won\'t be as good as 90% of the people on this board pick them to be... again... next season.

[Edited on 13/1/2004 by WhoDat]

Danno · 01-13-2004, 04:40 PM

1st off, I don\'t remember any analyst/reporter/scout/expert predict this team would go 12-4. I don\'t think I\'ve ever heard it in 35 plus years.

Most predicted 9-7 with a shot at winning the division. We had a shot.

Some said 10-6 if we stayed healthy and the defense jelled quickly. We didn\'t and it didn\'t

Some said 8-8 due to the huge player turnover. These were actually very few, but they were right.

So we basically finished a game out of what most analysts/reporters/scouts/experts predicted. For that we get the \'we suck and always will\" attitude?

Had Dallas and Jacksonville blown us out ala the 2002 December collapse I\'d probably be singing that tune but the team played pretty good down the stretch and I have valid reasons for optimism in 2004. Do I think 12-4? No, but I can see this exact same team with some lucky Panther type breaks win 9 games easy, AS IS, NO CHANGES.

This team is a player or two away from a legit SB run. I could say that about maybe 5 or 6 Saints teams in our 37 year history. It just so happens that 2 of those teams were in 2002 and 2003.

WhoDat · 01-13-2004, 04:55 PM

Well, people on this board said 11-5 and 12-4 consistently. When I brought up exactly the point you just made, that no scout was predicting those records, everyone talked about how the \"experts\" were never right and blasted me for saying 8-8. I think you might have been one of those people.

I don\'t think it matters if the analysts are right or wrong. If they all predict 3-13, and we are 3-13, then is that OK? No. Point is, we were 8-8 - average. AGAIN. With the most talented team in Saints history - if that\'s OK by you, cool. It\'s not OK to me and I think the coach should shoulder the blame. In fact, we should be looking for or have signed a new head coach by now.

Instead we won\'t, and next year we\'ll probably go 10-6 and squeeze into the playoffs, and people like you will talk about how all of us were ready to give Haslett the ax, but look at what he did. He got us in the playoffs! The reality will be that this team is just too damn talented not to make the playoffs and Haslett won\'t have gotten us there - in fact, he will probably be the difference between us being 12-4, which we are talented enough to be with good coaching, and the 10-6 we\'ll probably be b/c we\'re underachievers with Haslett running the show.

BillyC · 01-13-2004, 05:00 PM

Look, I\'m all for being optimisic, but I just don\'t think Haslett did a very good job of coaching this year. In fact, I didn\'t think this team even showed up for most of the year. WhoDat\'s right!! Hasett has to shoulder the blame. As far as the injuries go.........Yeah, we had \'em, but our offense didn\'t and they didn\'t show up for most of the season either.

I\'m optimistic that we\'ll go to the playoffs and maybe even the SB(big maybe) but I ain\'t optimistic that Haslett is going to coach us there or outcoach too many teams next year.

[Edited on 13/1/2004 by BillyC]

WhoDat · 01-13-2004, 05:09 PM

Wow, Billy to the rescue!

That being said, the difference to me between being SB bound and just being a playoff team is coaching and luck. Luck we can\'t do anything about, but has it EVER been good for the Saints? As for coaching, Haslett can\'t get us over that hump. In a league full of parity our players are a cut above. Not a whole lot of teams can say that. However, many other teams have good coaches that can make the difference between winning and losing with film study, preparation, discipline, leadership, and playcalling. We don\'t have that, so eventually, when we meet a team with as much talent as we have, they\'ll outplay us every time.

01-13-2004, 01:54 PM	#11
Danno Site Donor 2014 Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,640	Ouch - Hammer meet Nail Maybe he is looking only at the negative side of things, but why would he look at the positives? What positives have come as a result of the last three seasons? This team has been defined by mediocrity and underachievement over the last three years. There\'s really no other way to put it. So I guess the only articles we should see are strickly overwhelmingly negative hatchet jobs? Gee, haven\'t we seen about 34 years of the same exact article. Its old and worn out, like the Jake debates. We had a bad season but there are some positive reasons to look forward to next season. But you\'ll never hear DeShazier mention them. Its against his anti-Saint agenda. \"WE SUCK, AND WE ALWAYS WILL, SO WHY EVEN BOTHER, YOU BUNCH OF IDIOT SAINT FANS.\"

01-13-2004, 02:03 PM	#12
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Ouch - Hammer meet Nail You\'re right Danno. Let\'s talk about why the Saints will be 12-4 next year. Ready? You start.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

01-13-2004, 02:05 PM	#13
Danno Site Donor 2014 Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,640	Ouch - Hammer meet Nail You\'re right Danno. Let\'s talk about why the Saints will be 12-4 next year. Ready? You start. OFFENSE- 1. RB- We have a top 5 talent in McAllister and a good FB. Add a dependable back-up and this unit is as good as it gets. A multi-dimensional fullback would be a nice addition. 2. QB- I see Brooks as a top 10 guy. Solid back-up in Bouman. A developing 3rd QB in fiesty emotional O\'Sullivan who reminds me of a young Jake. Definitely not the weak link on this team. 3. Good O-line with young interior. Bentley, Holland, Jacox (at center) gives us a solid interior that should be a better run-blocking unit next year. Riley and Gandy played well enough at tackle to hold their own. An upper middle-of-the-pack unit that should improve next year. Not great, but not bad either. 4. Best TE group here in a while. Boo will only get better, Conwell was solid after a shakey start. The youngster Hilton may develop into a weapon either in 2004 or 2005. 5. WR- Horn still has a few solid years left. Stallworth\'s nagging injury problems should start decreasing as it has with other WR\'s who had similar probs. Pathon is a versatile, dependable WR that can play all 3 positions well. Lewis was much better than I ever thought he would be. Gardner is still a 2-3 year project with HUGE upside. Add a sure handed possession type free-agent and this unit should rebound to be one of the better ones around. They were the weak link this year on Offense and I feel they know it, and better improve. DEFENSE 6. DL- Howard, Grant, Sullivan will all be better. Add a true nose DT and this unit should dominate for years to come. 7. LB- The weakness of this unit will be addressed this offseason. There WILL be a proven stud added to this unit before the season starts. I can see 2 new starters (maybe all 3) on opening day in 2004. It\'ll be exciting to see what they do. Hodge must improve, I think he will. Grant may be the stud in the middle we need. Although I\'d move him outside. Between Rodgers, Ruff, and Allen one should step up and improve. 8. CB- Its no secret that we have one solid corner, and 3 seviceable nicklebacks. I see a solid vet and a young stud added to this unit. Thomas will start (and he should) but I see a new guy on the other side. Its possible that Thomas may be the only keeper on this unit for 2004. 9. SS- Mel Mitchell should be back to 100%. If he was truly good enough to put Bellamy on the bench then it\'ll be exciting to see what this guy can do. 10. FS- OK. I know he was hammered all year, and it was justified, but he did start to play better as the year went on. I think he will improve quite a bit. His poor tackling technique has at least been admitted to. A copy of Tackling for Dummies and some additional attention should be the recipe for improvement. Whether he finally justifies his salary remains to be seen but I do think he\'ll be much improved. GEE, NOW THAT WASN\'T TOO HARD WAS IT? [Edited on 13/1/2004 by Danno]

01-13-2004, 02:21 PM	#14
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Ouch - Hammer meet Nail Nice assessment Danno. 12-4 might be stretching it a bit, but with the talent on this team there is no reason why we shouldn\'t be at least a little optimistic about any new season. It may be unlikely, but even if Haslet is not a good coach, the players COULD play above his level. In 2003, the Saints were a few bad referee decisions and a couple ball control issues away from 11-5. I maintain that the biggest probem was play calling, not performance, since even with the drops and the mental errors they were in position to win at least 11 games this year.

01-13-2004, 04:23 PM	#15
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Ouch - Hammer meet Nail I was being sarcastic... Here\'s an even more fun idea - let\'s see how many of those reasons you just listed match what people said this time last offseason. Won\'t that be fun? You talk about DeShazier sounding like a broken record... I think I\'ve heard all the reasons why the Saints will be 12-4 a few too many times myself - especially since that kind of record has only happened ONCE in our 35+ year history. DeShazier may be negative, but at least he\'s right. We can blow sunshine up each other\'s a$$, but it\'s all talk. The Saints won\'t be as good as 90% of the people on this board pick them to be... again... next season. [Edited on 13/1/2004 by WhoDat]
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

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

01-13-2004, 04:40 PM	#16
Danno Site Donor 2014 Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,640	Ouch - Hammer meet Nail 1st off, I don\'t remember any analyst/reporter/scout/expert predict this team would go 12-4. I don\'t think I\'ve ever heard it in 35 plus years. Most predicted 9-7 with a shot at winning the division. We had a shot. Some said 10-6 if we stayed healthy and the defense jelled quickly. We didn\'t and it didn\'t Some said 8-8 due to the huge player turnover. These were actually very few, but they were right. So we basically finished a game out of what most analysts/reporters/scouts/experts predicted. For that we get the \'we suck and always will\" attitude? Had Dallas and Jacksonville blown us out ala the 2002 December collapse I\'d probably be singing that tune but the team played pretty good down the stretch and I have valid reasons for optimism in 2004. Do I think 12-4? No, but I can see this exact same team with some lucky Panther type breaks win 9 games easy, AS IS, NO CHANGES. This team is a player or two away from a legit SB run. I could say that about maybe 5 or 6 Saints teams in our 37 year history. It just so happens that 2 of those teams were in 2002 and 2003.

01-13-2004, 04:55 PM	#17
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Ouch - Hammer meet Nail Well, people on this board said 11-5 and 12-4 consistently. When I brought up exactly the point you just made, that no scout was predicting those records, everyone talked about how the \"experts\" were never right and blasted me for saying 8-8. I think you might have been one of those people. I don\'t think it matters if the analysts are right or wrong. If they all predict 3-13, and we are 3-13, then is that OK? No. Point is, we were 8-8 - average. AGAIN. With the most talented team in Saints history - if that\'s OK by you, cool. It\'s not OK to me and I think the coach should shoulder the blame. In fact, we should be looking for or have signed a new head coach by now. Instead we won\'t, and next year we\'ll probably go 10-6 and squeeze into the playoffs, and people like you will talk about how all of us were ready to give Haslett the ax, but look at what he did. He got us in the playoffs! The reality will be that this team is just too damn talented not to make the playoffs and Haslett won\'t have gotten us there - in fact, he will probably be the difference between us being 12-4, which we are talented enough to be with good coaching, and the 10-6 we\'ll probably be b/c we\'re underachievers with Haslett running the show.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

01-13-2004, 05:00 PM	#18
BillyC Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 842	Ouch - Hammer meet Nail Look, I\'m all for being optimisic, but I just don\'t think Haslett did a very good job of coaching this year. In fact, I didn\'t think this team even showed up for most of the year. WhoDat\'s right!! Hasett has to shoulder the blame. As far as the injuries go.........Yeah, we had \'em, but our offense didn\'t and they didn\'t show up for most of the season either. I\'m optimistic that we\'ll go to the playoffs and maybe even the SB(big maybe) but I ain\'t optimistic that Haslett is going to coach us there or outcoach too many teams next year. [Edited on 13/1/2004 by BillyC]
BillyC Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 842

01-13-2004, 05:09 PM	#19
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Ouch - Hammer meet Nail Wow, Billy to the rescue! That being said, the difference to me between being SB bound and just being a playoff team is coaching and luck. Luck we can\'t do anything about, but has it EVER been good for the Saints? As for coaching, Haslett can\'t get us over that hump. In a league full of parity our players are a cut above. Not a whole lot of teams can say that. However, many other teams have good coaches that can make the difference between winning and losing with film study, preparation, discipline, leadership, and playcalling. We don\'t have that, so eventually, when we meet a team with as much talent as we have, they\'ll outplay us every time.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"