Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints
Shop Horizontal

"One Level Removed"

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Billy, I think we\'ve agreed on this topic for some time now. I was just checking to see to what extent you\'d decided to change your position on this one. I agree with this: And you know what? I still ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-27-2004, 11:29 AM   #11
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,417
"One Level Removed"

Billy, I think we\'ve agreed on this topic for some time now. I was just checking to see to what extent you\'d decided to change your position on this one.

I agree with this:
And you know what? I still will think Haslett can become a successful head coach some where. I would just rather get someone else in here just in case he can\'t because I feel like he has had enough time here.
I think, and I\'m sure someone could show this, that the number of gambles on players the Saints have taken are not too many more or less than other teams. Ruff was a bit of a bust, sure, but how many people thought he was the second coming. Rogers paid off, so that is 50%. T-buck was an asset to our defense (even if he had trouble tackling) - who else was really available to us to fill the S need? Ambrose was playing nickle in ATL; I don\'t think Haz brought him in to start. Hand replaced by Sully - did we win on that? At least we didn\'t lose. Moving Bellamy to SS: priceless. Dale Carter didn\'t look good (EXCEPT when he was healthy and on the field, which wasn\'t very often). At any rate, I\'m having trouble of thinking of these as GAMBLES; they seem more like calculated risks, and ones that weren\'t too bad at that.

I think we ALL agree that Haz\'s biggest weakness is in dealing with troubled players and maintaining discipline. It is my veiw that this sort of thing IS the most difficult thing for a new head coach (espc. when they played some time ago). I think that the ego of an NFL player is GENERALLY getting worse and more difficult to manage. This is not an excuse for Haz, since it is his JOB to get these guys playing as a team (and he has failed most glamourously); however, it is an explanation as to why some of the younger coaches have trouble their first few years.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks :cool:
JKool is offline  
Old 06-27-2004, 11:32 AM   #12
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
"One Level Removed"

I would just rather get someone else in here just in case he can\'t because I feel like he has had enough time here.
Billy - this is a point I\'ve made in the past as well. My question has been, if he makes the playoffs this year, is everything forgiven?

I guess for me that answer is more a matter of how than if. In other words, it\'s not about if they make the playoffs as compared to how they do it.

In my mind, playoffs are an absolute must for Haslett to keep his job. I think few people feel differently about that (Danno and Saintfan seem OK with allowing another year of no playoffs based on the circumstances).

For me, if the Saints are inconsistent again this season, and slide in as a Wild Card at 9-7 or 10-6 and lose in round one - I don\'t see that as much of an upgrade. As you\'ve argued - an extra point here, a completed pass there and this team could have been 9-7 or 10-6 last year. But to me they were a BS 8-8. They beat no winning teams.

In any case, my point is, for me to believe that Haslett can turn it around and give us a real shot, I need to see a solidly winning season with consistent play. If we go 10-6 but lose to other winning teams and beat the teams we\'re supposed to, if we win a playoff game and/or show that we can truly contend, then even I will say the guy deserves another year. Not another three or five, but another year.

My great fear is that the Saints stumble and bumble and somehow find themsleves in the playoffs as the 6 cede and get destroyed in round 1 and everyone says - well he made the playoff, what more do you want? Then I\'ll hear about how I hate the guy and nothing is good enough. That\'s not it - to me, he has to show results in two ares: 1) Record, and 2) The ability to take charge of the team, eliminate the stupid mistakes, and make them consistently competitive.

\"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.\"
WhoDat is offline  
Old 06-27-2004, 12:06 PM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
"One Level Removed"

Posted by JKool:
T-buck was an asset to our defense
In some ways Tebucky was an asset. In some ways he was a detriment. All in all Tebucky was disappointing last season, IMO.

Posted by JKool:
I think, and I\'m sure someone could show this, that the number of gambles on players the Saints have taken are not too many more or less than other teams. Ruff was a bit of a bust, sure, but how many people thought he was the second coming. Rogers paid off, so that is 50%.
IMO, when Haslett signed unproven or average players to fill the cornerback and linebacker positions it WAS A GAMBLE. Nothing wrong with gambling some. But those positions have been trouble areas for 3 years. And we\'re still gambling this year.

I like the way things are shaping up this year (kinda) but I liked the way things were shaping up last year too. Injuries killed us last year. I continue to say that I\'m giving Haslett the benefit of the doubt. But, I\'m also placing blame on Haslett for not correcting SOME of the problems quick enough.

I sound like WhoDat arguing with me last year. :P
GumboBC is offline  
Old 06-27-2004, 12:12 PM   #14
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
"One Level Removed"

WhoDat --

Good post.

I think we are starting to agree on a lot of things. I\'ve changed my position on Haslett to some extent. And you\'ve changed your stance on Brooks to a certain extent. I too think Brooks still has to put it together in the consistency department. I mean, he can\'t find ways to hurt this team on a consistent basis.
GumboBC is offline  
Old 06-27-2004, 04:08 PM   #15
100th Post
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 154
"One Level Removed"

We were one level removed from the play off\'s ; )
Bise is offline  
Old 06-27-2004, 06:55 PM   #16
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,417
"One Level Removed"

Billy, our linebackers are a counterexample. Rodgers and Ruff were both proven players. They are both starters. Those were not GAMBLES. Sure, Ruff didn\'t payoff as expected, and we\'re still working there. However, I don\'t see those moves as Gambling.

Also, as far as filling positions through the draft, Haz has done pretty well: Duece and Charles Grant come to mind immediately. Haz\'s group got us Hand - and he had a great season.

My point isn\'t that Haz doesn\'t have his problems (in general I agree with you and WhoDat on this one), but I still think that some caution is warranted in saying that he has just been plain bad in filling holes. In fact, I\'m willing to bet that Haz\'s track record of filling holes in FA isn\'t much worse than ANY other teams (in terms of guys brought in with a lot of hype and didn\'t pan out). The Bills defense or the Redskins offence of the last few years are great examples.

As far as T-buck goes, I don\'t think he was simply a \"disappointment\". The number of times I watched a WR run free to the end zone in plays of 30 or more yards was almost none compared to the year before. That is a HUGE success in my eyes. It is also my view that the FS can gamble on the ball more if the coverage is there on the corner - which it wasn\'t last year. Thus, I don\'t see how people want T-buck to stop the deep ball, provide zone help, AND make plays on the ball!? Sure he had some trouble tackling, but he did do all those other things we needed from our Safeties. I\'ll tell you what, I bet Bellamy\'s revival was in part due to not have to worry about getting scorched over his head (thanks again to our center fielder).

I agree that most of our teams problems go back to coaching, but how bad is it? I agree with WhoDat that how we make the playoffs matters to Haz keeping his job. I just don\'t see much reason to be negative about him so far this season GIVEN that he seems to have changed approach. It is this change that leads me to be skeptical about the usual - Haz sucked, Haz sucked, therefore Haz will suck - argument.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks :cool:
JKool is offline  
Old 06-27-2004, 10:18 PM   #17
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
"One Level Removed"

JKool --

I think we agree on a lot of levels. Only you look at the free agents brought in at MLB and CB and see players that weren\'t expected to be stars. And I see huge holes that needed to be filled with a sure thing. Or at least more of a sure thing than what Haslett brought in with Orlando Ruff and Ashley Ambrose. Thus, I think it was more of a gamble than Haslett should have taken considering they had been trouble areas for about 3 years.

On Tebucky: I agree that he was a huge assest in preventing the deep pass last year, which was a HUGE problem the previous year. I think some folks forget that? I\'m probably being too critical on Tebucky. I think he\'s going to go on to have a great career with the Saints. But, he needs to tighten up in the tackling department..

[Edited on 28/6/2004 by GumboBC]
GumboBC is offline  
Old 06-28-2004, 12:52 AM   #18
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,417
"One Level Removed"

I think we\'re pretty close on this one (as usual?).

I\'m thinking we\'re merely disagreeing about what constitutes a gamble.
JKool is offline  
Old 06-28-2004, 10:36 AM   #19
100th Post
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 125
"One Level Removed"

GumboBC, WhoDat. both agreeable? agreeing?

Since i\'ve been on the borad (not too long a time) this doesn\'t happen like this! Maybe there\'s hope for the Israelis and Palestinians after all.

Gumbo, you in one breath complain about Haz not being consistent, changing every year. But then you congratulate him for changing his style and going tough on his players. :casstet:

He\'s new to head coaching, so you have to expect him to try new styles. I\'d be much more ready to see him gone already if he didn\'t change his style. Why? Because we haven\'t done well. If our team was in the playoffs each year being competitive, hell ya, stay consistent.

If we do stupid things, drop the ball, fade in December, etc., i don\'t want us to \'consistently\' do these things. So change is good.

i agree, i think Haz \'can\' become a good coach somewhere. Not sure if this is his gig anymore. Depends on this year\'s results. And i agree with Who Dat that it\'s not only good enough to make the playoffs, but look solid and look like a real threat, than a lucky team. We have the talent...let\'s show it.

i think Haz is a bit clueless on the recipe for victory. That doesn\'t mean he can\'t learn. But i do not see a philosophy that truly works yet. It\'s like a guy who doesn\'t know how to cook adding a dash of salt (oops! too salty) then more water, (oops too watery), ad nauseum.

This is the only way a guy learns to coach (or cook), by making mistakes. But with all due respect to Haz, if he hasn\'t learned how to make a pot of gumbo by now, he needs to get out the kitchen and let someone else try. He has been a very good coach (New Orleans Saint\'s standards), not excellent, but heck, we got our 1st playoff win under him, and as much as we can argue it\'s luck, fate, Ditka\'s guys....still it was under him.

Plus from the Ditka era to now, I am much more pleased with the team. We actually can discuss whether we will go far in the playoffs, or even the Superbowl... i\'d much rather that than ponder if we\'ll have the 4th pick in next year\'s draft.


In conclusion, wait....what am i talking about again?? Thanks for humoring me, guys.
St.Shrume is offline  
Old 06-28-2004, 10:44 AM   #20
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
"One Level Removed"

Posted by St.Shrume:
Gumbo, you in one breath complain about Haz not being consistent, changing every year. But then you congratulate him for changing his style and going tough on his players.
You are correct. I am complaining about ALL the changes Haslett has experimented with in HOPES of finding success. Change isn\'t always a good thing. As a matter of fact, too much change and you end up right back where you started at. Which is still searching for answers!!!

That said, I like Hasletts approach this year. But, there\'s nothing NEW about it. The only successful year Haslett EVER had as a head coach he had what going for him? A no-nonsense approach!!!

After all the changes and experimenting he\'s right back where he started from. Call me crazy, but if it was working to begin with then I would have stuck with it. Glad Haslett figured it out...

[Edited on 28/6/2004 by GumboBC]
GumboBC is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:13 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts