|
Ouch - Hammer meet Nail
Saints' company line can't cut it this year Tuesday January 13, 2004 John DeShazier The fire remains in the belly. No major overhaul is needed. The team is so close to advancing to the playoffs, it can smell the ticket sales. Stop me if you've heard this before from the Saints, if you're sick of hearing it, or both. After all, such words and optimism are so routine from a team that has mastered the art of mediocrity, it's impossible to ignore the strong sense of déjÃÂÂÂ* vu. We, and the franchise, have been there. We, and the franchise, have done that. It's hard not to reflect on the Saints' answers during their 2003 exit exam -- and not exactly gain a sense of security from them -- while watching playoff games that again don't involve the New Orleans franchise, featuring teams that somehow have managed to figure out that "something" that eludes the Saints' grasp like a shadow. The Saints finished 8-8 -- same as Cincinnati, but a totally different feel. The Bengals have the sweet scent of optimism as they look to ascend. The Saints again managed to sour most of the good feelings that were heaped on them before and during the season. Reality is the team hasn't improved where it counts under Coach Jim Haslett since a magical first season, when it won a division title and the first playoff game in franchise history. There's been an upgrade in personnel, a downgrade in victories. Since going 11-7 in 2000, which seems like an Ice Age ago, the Saints have been as average as average can be -- 24 wins and 24 losses in 48 games, good enough to stay in the playoff race until the last week or two, bad enough to screw it up when it really counts. Reality is that when players begin questioning the professionalism of teammates -- as quarterback :o Aaron Brooks and running back Deuce McAllister did -- the problem goes beyond personnel. It goes beyond whether the fire remains in Haslett's belly, or whether wholesale or cosmetic changes are required. These broken Saints are Haslett's production. True, he has a general manager (Mickey Loomis) and director of player personnel (Rick Mueller) who purportedly are his equals in the front-office pecking order. But given Haslett's background as an NFL player and assistant coach, one can't seriously believe he's going to yield ground on personnel moves to men who have less experience in the field that has shaped his life. Which means it's probably time for owner Tom Benson to hire someone to whom Haslett will defer -- a role that has gone unfilled since Randy Mueller was fired prior to the 2002 season -- since coaches who double as personnel men rarely are effectively at both. Because no one wants to see something that began so well go bad as Haslett enters a time frame (his fifth season) in which sports marriages often end or begin to crumble. Tony Dungy, Dan Reeves, Bill Callahan, Dennis Green and Steve Mariucci were fired after accomplishing more with Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Oakland, Minnesota and San Francisco, respectively. New Orleans pines for the kind of success those coaches helped generate. It looks longingly at the NFL's final four and wonders, why not the Saints? Because each seemingly had its share of warts, too. Indianapolis, with its shoddy playoff reputation, has marched through opponents. New England, which has been battered and bruised all season, managed to produce enough big plays to win 13 games in a row and reach the AFC championship game against the Colts. Philadelphia was 0-2 behind a quarterback who seemed to be completing more passes to opponents than teammates. Carolina, Philly's opponent for the NFC crown, was considered more lucky than good until the goodness kept happening. Those four have their sights set on the Super Bowl. The Saints have "fire" and no plans to make major changes. No need to stop me if you've heard it before. I'll stop myself. . . . . . . . |
Ouch - Hammer meet Nail
Wow, I\'ll bet that was difficult for John DeShazier to write.
Its the most upbeat positive thing I\'ve read from him in years. Maybe he\'s slowly trying to turn into an optimist...baby steps John, baby steps. |
Ouch - Hammer meet Nail
John DeShazier\'s journalisim mission statement:
WE\'RE THE SAINTS, THE TEAM SUCKS AND ALWAYS WILL, THE FANS ARE STUPID AND ALWAYS WILL BE. True to form, another John DeShazier article hits his mission statement nail on the head with his hammer of negativity. What a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZER! WAHHHHHHHHHH, WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH, WAHHHHHHHHHHHH |
Ouch - Hammer meet Nail
Gee Danno, it sounds to me like he\'s got it about as right on as is possible. You disagree with what he said?
|
Ouch - Hammer meet Nail
If you goal is to point out everything negative about the Saints franchise and absolutely nothing positive, then gee whodat, he does nail it!
Its food for the pessimist\'s soul. And the \"we suck and always will\" crowd is lappin\' it up with a big ol\' pity biscuit. |
Ouch - Hammer meet Nail
OK. But what specifically did he say that you disagree with? I mean, the guy is saying that since Haslett\'s first year, the Saints haven\'t gotten any better and haven\'t found a way to make the playoffs. That sound wrong to you?
He\'s also saying that every year we hear about how much better we\'ll be next year, how we\'re close, all we need is this or that - but this or that never materializes, does it? I know that you\'ll have a real hard time convincing me, and probably a whole lot of other Saints fans, that this offseason is much different than many others since Haslett came here, and thus, why is there much reason to believe that things will change? |
Ouch - Hammer meet Nail
Quote:
Oh, its not that I disagree with most of his doom and gloom points, its his attention to negativity that irks me. Like this line in particular... \"... from a team that has mastered the art of mediocrity\" As if thats their major goal. The grand plan of mastering mediocrity. Yea, thats their plan. I could point out a negative on every player and coach on this team and you\'d have a hard time claiming what I say is wrong. Imagine what scouting reports on college players would look like if the omitted the \"POSITIVES:\" section and only listed the \"NEGATIVES:\" about that player. You\'d think there wasn\'t a single college player worthy of playing NFL football wouldn\'t you? Thats DeShazier for you. He irritates me. |
Ouch - Hammer meet Nail
Danno, I would like to thank you for that post. You make your point so much more gracefully than do I. Thank you sir. Thank you Thank you Thank you.
|
Ouch - Hammer meet Nail
\"Reality is that when players begin questioning the professionalism of teammates -- as quarterback Aaron Brooks and running back Deuce McAllister did -- the problem goes beyond personnel. It goes beyond whether the fire remains in Haslett\'s belly, or whether wholesale or cosmetic changes are required.\"
Did I miss something? I remember some rumbling after the last game about some unprofessionalism exhibited by Saints players, but nothing really emerged as concrete accusations. Did Brooks or McAllister ever come out to the media about any specific players (other than Horn\'s cell phone business)? I just don\'t remember getting the feeling that the wheels were coming off to this degree. That statement makes it sound like unprofessionalism was a major problem all year - and the cause of why they didn\'t make the playoffs, but I never really heard anything about such complaints. |
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.
|
Ouch - Hammer meet Nail
Quote:
\"WE SUCK, AND WE ALWAYS WILL, SO WHY EVEN BOTHER, YOU BUNCH OF IDIOT SAINT FANS.\" |
Ouch - Hammer meet Nail
You\'re right Danno. Let\'s talk about why the Saints will be 12-4 next year. Ready? You start.
|
Ouch - Hammer meet Nail
Quote:
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] |
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. |
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] |
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. |
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. |
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] |
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. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:39 PM. |
Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com