saintfan

08 --

I realize your mind won\'t be changed, but none of those quotes indicate Haz \"conspired\" to keep Jake off the field. Some question the wisdom of not starting Jake, and I can understand that, but non of those quotes point to a conspiracy theory.

conspiracy -- an unlawful plot

conspire -- to plan together secretly, esp. to commit a crime...to work together toward a single end

Again I say...whether it was bad judgement or not depends on whom you ask. To say it was a conspiracy is a real reach.

whowatches

Great post.

You\'ve just gained quite a bit of credibility in my eyes.

(Please don\'t interpret that comment as condescending.)

saintz08

Clearly there were those within the organization that wanted Jake Delhomme to be put in the game .

Despite this Haslett continued to play an injured quarterback .

For what reason would he do such a thing .

As clearly stated , not to divide the team .

Haslett with sole command of the team as Head coach , made a decision not based upon how to win the games in the end of 2002 and get into the play offs , but how not to divide the team .

WhoDat

Hey Saintfan - I don\'t think there was a conspiracy either, BUT, you don\'t think the fact that the Saints had had a QB controversy a year earlier, and that they had just paid Brooks $36 million, and that his confidence was already shaky, and the fact that the locker room was nuts, MIGHT have influenced Haslett\'s decision?

That seems very realistic to me. I mean, the guy sees three cream puffs on the schedule and starts thinking long term. We\'ll get by these teams - or at least enough of them to make the playoffs. That\'s all that really matters. Why hurt Brooks\' confidence? The kid is already under a ton of pressure from the fans and media. Why not help his confidence, avoid another controversy in the locker room, and gear up for the playoffs? Seems realistic to me.

But if Haslett did that then he was considering things other than play on the field and which QB put the Saints in better situations to win each week. You don\'t do that in the NFL when the playoffs are on the line. If it\'s week one, maybe. If you\'re training a young star to replace a crafty vet - OK. But if you\'re 9-4 and need one win to get in, you play whomever gives you the best chance at being 10-4. Then you worry about everything else.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ 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.\"

saintfan

Whodat --

In the interest of keeping things civil -- and in an attempt to acknowledge all opinions -- I can only say that your thoughts are indeed possible. Maybe Haz didn\'t want a controversy at QB (I don\'t think Brooks/Blake was a controversy tho).

Looking back always provides a more complete view. The thing is that we have to assume that putting Jake in for those last three games was a no-brainer. I know some of you bang your head against the wall because you think it was a no-brainer, but I\'m just not so sure. Jake had played well and there\'s no reason to assume he wouldn\'t have played well again, but if Haz really thought Brooks could play (and who\'s to say he didn\'t) then you have to allow him to play Brooks. Also, what you\'re saying must mean that Haz knew damn well Jake was a better QB (if even for three games) than Brooks was and that he purposfully tanked those games to save the ego of Brooks, and you could be right as rain...or you could be way off base. If you think Haz did that then that\'s what you think, but I disagree.

To think Haz tanked those last three games means you (not you in particular) have to think the games were lost on the arm of the QB. You can no longer take into account poor blocking or poorly executed plays or dropped passes etc. You have to Blame Brooks entirely. I watched those games and I do not. You have to think Haz made a consious decision. You have to think he actually said to himslef, \"I could win these games with Jake, but I\'m not gonna play him because I want to protect Brooks\' ego.\" That means that Haz would stake his career as a coach on the ego of Aaron Brooks, and I just don\'t think that\'s the case.

I watched those games and I can honestly say I don\'t think that\'s the case. I\'m also not saying that the Saints wouldn\'t have won with Jake. I\'m saying those games were lost for reasons that go beyond the play of AB...even tho his numbers were indeed down. Because I believe that I cannot believe 08\'s conspiracy theory nor can I believe that Haz made a consious decision to lose.

C'mon Man...

saintz08

I am raising my pinkie to you too as I drink my tea . Hope I don\'t nod off in my crumpets .....

If you can agree that Brooks leadership ability was in question and Delhomme was a local fan favorite , then you can see how certain locker room questions and local media might have reacted towards Delhomme doing well and potentially getting them into the playoffs .

Consider the following :

Haslett had just finished dealing with Roaf on a locker room drama the previous year . Turley had vocalized himself towards Brooks . As Haslett looked down the barrel of the Home grown debate for the quarterback position , he might have said \" I need to do whatever I can to avoid this distraction to the team \" .Thus he keep Delhomme out of the game .

\"Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn\'t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed.\" - George S. Patton
On another note, I\'ll take a bite of that crow 08. - Saintfan
Brooks is a moron!! - Halo

saintfan

Brooks\' leadership and Jake\'s popularity have exactly what to do with this supposed theory that Haz tanked games on purpose? No guessing...no assuming...no speculating. See, whether Haz thought Brooks was well enough to play can ONLY be answered by Haz, and he answered it. If you watched the games and viewed them fairly then you can\'t honestly tell me you think Brooks cost them those last three games on his own. Well, YOU might assume it, but as I\'ve said before, we (this entire board) already know how you feel. Jake is gone and it\'s time for you to move on 08...in my opinion. I\'m not going to agree with your supposed conspiracy theory now and I never will...accept that...get on over it. 2004 is here 08...get out of 2002 already!

It should also be acknowledged that you\'ve taken yet another thread and hijacked it. A thread that was intended to give Jake his props has been turned into yet another QB debate by YOU. I guess you\'re trying to keep the debate going. Jake IS GONE 08...like it or not. The way I see it you\'ve got a choice. Jake\'s is over there playin for Carolina. I\'m sure they\'d welcome you. They don\'t know you like I do...yet!

[Edited on 3/2/2004 by saintfan]

C'mon Man...

saintz08

Blame it on Horn :

Horn emphasized that he wasn\'t criticizing Brooks. I\'m not here to bash Brooks either. I\'m here to bash the man responsible for denying Delhomme a chance to start with the Saints.

He opened the can of worms .

Any thoughts on Horn bashing Haslett ???

WhoDat

Hey Saintfan, I\'m all for civility. You make some valid points - of course I still take issue with some of the ones above. I\'m not suggesting that Haslett knew full well that Jake was a better option and purposefully tanked the season. What I am suggesting is that Haslett may have either been blinded by other things besides play on the field, and/or he may never have expected to lose three straight to the teams left on our schedule. My point is, maybe he thought - \"Yeah, Jake may be a better option right now, but Brooks is the key down the line. Why hurt his confidence right before a playoff run? There\'s no way that we won\'t pick up three wins against these teams, so why worry about it?\"

That doesn\'t necessarily translate into wrongful acts or purposeful negligence, but it\'s negligent none the less. If that is how he looked at it, I can\'t really blame Haslett for being confident. At 9-4 I was still toying with scenarios in which the Saints won the division. I doubted it, but it was entirely possible. So, OK, you go with Brooks in game one. By game two you have to be getting worried. Game three - well, at the half when one of the league\'s highest scoring offenses has 3 points or whatever they had scored, and you\'ve watched your starter struggle for four straight games two of which he had to be taken out of, and the playoffs are on the line, and you don\'t put a backup who you said could start in a lot of places around the league in the game for a single series. Yeah, something is fishy there. Maybe not malicious, but there\'s a major disconnect in that logic.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ 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.\"

sal

compare coaches. real coaches win. they put the players in that will win. divide the team? thats their friggin ego problem. look what the pats did. they cut that stud back lawyer miloy or whoever he was.. then they get BEAT DOWN opening day by the team that signed him, the bills. ohhh... was he concerned about hurting fans feelings? dividing the team? hell no, he\'s a great coach who just proceeded to win 15 in a row because he is CONFIDENT in his coaching decisions and that single move in the offseason told every player on that team that noone was safe and you\'re going to have to play your ass off to stick around. bring your ego to the bills locker room. we play football here.

why they gotta make it so damn hard to support the saints?