Brooks and Saints are losers

Saint_LB · 11-12-2004, 03:33 PM

When I say the Saints are losers, I have history backing me. I do not enjoy making this observation, because I truly have been a huge fan of this team from the beginning. Nobody would be happier than me if somehow this organization could get turned around....and nobody would be happier than me if I could no longer say this. The thing that makes me wonder the most is why this ownership is so tolerant of mediocrity, while other players and coaches from other organizations are always on a much shorter leash. I don\'t pretend to know all the answers, but I feel compelled to ask the questions.

Regarding AB, I feel the same way. Nobody wanted him to become a superstar more than me. After 2000, I was one of his biggest supporters. Then things started changing. First he stopped scrambling, then he started back-pedaling, then throwing ill-adivised passes and interceptions, and last year the fumbles. This year it seems to be a combination of all of the above. I think he has had a fair shake at it, and it just doesn\'t seem to be happening. The funny thing is that I feel that in the right scenario, he probably becomes and all-pro...if he could ever just learn to relax and play. I don\'t think that is going to happen here, and, what is really scary is that it may not be possible for anyone to make it here. Archie couldn\'t, and I think Archie was a pretty talented football player, but , somehow, this organization has always seemed to bring out the worst in it\'s players...and that seems to be the whole problem. Are we truly cursed?

Mull#5 · 11-13-2004, 06:38 PM

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head, we have talented players and yet most of them do not play talentedly (if that is a word)....maybe there is a curse, i mean, remember game 15 last year vs. Jacksonville, what an amazing play, and then all we needed was an extra point from the sure footed Carney to take it in to overtime, but oh no, wide right and our playoff chances, however slim, GONE.....a curse hmmmm.....i think so.

WhoDat · 11-14-2004, 10:17 AM

Yeah, there\'s a curse alright. His name is Jim Haslett.

JKool · 11-14-2004, 11:33 AM

Ok, I hate these history arguments. I\'m sure you are all familiar with statistics and independent trials, so I\'ll spare you the details. Losing 30 years ago, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH losing now, NOTHING.

Now, these arguments about the organization make some sense, since it is stable over several seasons at a time. Thus, if we fail to bring in good players, fail to develop them, and so on, OVER A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, then I\'m willing to buy the idea that there is some connection between losing this year and losing the pervious few years when the organization might be the cause of that. I think we have good reason to believe that players aren\'t developing here because of our current coaching staff, but, again, that has nothing to do with our history beyond the tenure of this coaching staft... nothing.

Furthermore, to claim that the ownership is a bigger factor in wins and losses than any set of coaches and players seems to be way off base. In fact, I would be shocked if it were any more than the smallest of factors, but I\'m open to argument on this matter.

With regard to being losers, do you just mean on the score board? Because if that is what you mean, the truth will be determined at the end of the season. Did you mean in some more general way? If so, I haven\'t heard any real argument one way or the other.

Wow, I seem to be pretty peeved these days. I think seeing this thread again and again is starting to get to me.

PS - Nice post RDOX.

subguy · 11-14-2004, 08:08 PM

I am really glad we finally have a thread with an original non-rehashed topic. :bandhead:

Saint_LB · 12-08-2004, 06:50 AM

Ok, I hate these history arguments. I\'m sure you are all familiar with statistics and independent trials, so I\'ll spare you the details. Losing 30 years ago, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH losing now, NOTHING.

Now, these arguments about the organization make some sense, since it is stable over several seasons at a time. Thus, if we fail to bring in good players, fail to develop them, and so on, OVER A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, then I\'m willing to buy the idea that there is some connection between losing this year and losing the pervious few years when the organization might be the cause of that. I think we have good reason to believe that players aren\'t developing here because of our current coaching staff, but, again, that has nothing to do with our history beyond the tenure of this coaching staft... nothing.

Furthermore, to claim that the ownership is a bigger factor in wins and losses than any set of coaches and players seems to be way off base. In fact, I would be shocked if it were any more than the smallest of factors, but I\'m open to argument on this matter.

With regard to being losers, do you just mean on the score board? Because if that is what you mean, the truth will be determined at the end of the season. Did you mean in some more general way? If so, I haven\'t heard any real argument one way or the other.

Wow, I seem to be pretty peeved these days. I think seeing this thread again and again is starting to get to me.

PS - Nice post RDOX.

How can you say that losing thirty years ago has nothing to do with losing now...that\'s pretty much the point of this thread. The Saints are losers now, just as they have been losers always. I mean, have they ever really won anything, besides a playoff game here, or maybe a division championship or two. The fact that they haven\'t even gotten close enough to a Superbowl to get a whiff makes them losers in my book, and AB is currently the loser in the spotlight. He follows a long line of losers before him that have played for this organization, and, unless something changes drastically, he will be followed by a long line of losers.

BlackandBlue · 12-08-2004, 08:12 AM

Why did you dig for this thread?

JKool · 12-08-2004, 10:25 AM

LB,

Well, to answer your question, I pretty well said why I thought that in the passage you quoted.

I don\'t think that there is no reason to argue something becuase \"the point of the thread\" goes against it. Do you?

(Point 1)
I\'ll recap though, since you seem to be interested:

Those people who think there is a CAUSAL connection between what happened 30 years ago and what is happening now must say what it is. The only obvious connection is we have the same team name and same owner (I believe). Owners and names have little to do with winning or losing (at least in comparison to who is on the team and who is coaching it). Thus, this team loses for reasons that are (mostly? totally?) causally (since teams all lose in the same way - scoring fewer points than their opponent) unrelated to why a team 30 years ago lost.

(Point 2)
With respect to being losers because they haven\'t won a SB, well, if that is your definition of being a loser then Dan Marino is a loser. Something about that seems right, but something about that seems so wrong to say. There is no real point in arguing against this definition of being a loser, but it is very unintuitive to me to say that Dan is a loser. (Btw it also follows that Michael Jordan is a loser because he never got a whiff of a SB either, even if he was one of the greatest basketball players of all time on your definition.)

BnB,
:shrug:

RDOX · 12-08-2004, 02:47 PM

Folks it goes to this. While we are talking history, remember, if you can (most of you were in diapers when this happened) when we got Jim Finks as GM. Finks strongly controlled Jim Mora, who in all honesty, was an unknown. Mora got known real quick, because he didn\'t have to worry about all of the player decisions and mess that Hazlett has to put up with. Finks also had a director of player personnel who was really the head scout, cap man, and overall talent evaluator of the team. All Mora had to do was coach.

History does repeat itself, just in a different city. This time it\'s the city we all hate the most: Atlanta. Rich McKay handles all of the football operations and Baby Mora coaches the team. And that\'s all he does, coach. He doesn\'t have the same type of pressures and chaos that swirls around in the Saints organizaiton, because Rich McKay is doing all of the heavy lifting for him. End result. 10-2.

Benson doesn\'t get it. He needs to hire a FOOTBALL minded GM and LEAVE HIM ALONE. I\'d also suspect that Arnold FieldCow(sp) is in there stirring the pot, and hasn\'t a clue about football operations either. He can hawk tickets though. The reason that LoomBoom is safe is because he doesn\'t cross FieldCow (Benson\'s personal BlowBoy) who wants to be boss of the whole thing, but doesn\'t have a clue about what it takes to run a professional sports franchise.

We\'ve been in the toilet, ever since Finks died. That\'s the curse, Benson didn\'t have sense enough to find a Rich McKay type and leave him alone. Until that happens, we\'re hosed with a 10\" line at 500psi.

BrooksMustGo · 12-08-2004, 02:55 PM

FieldCow (Benson\'s personal BlowBoy) who wants to be boss of the whole thing

:rollinglaugh:

Now I don\'t care who you are--that\'s funny.

11-12-2004, 03:33 PM	#41
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Brooks and Saints are losers When I say the Saints are losers, I have history backing me. I do not enjoy making this observation, because I truly have been a huge fan of this team from the beginning. Nobody would be happier than me if somehow this organization could get turned around....and nobody would be happier than me if I could no longer say this. The thing that makes me wonder the most is why this ownership is so tolerant of mediocrity, while other players and coaches from other organizations are always on a much shorter leash. I don\'t pretend to know all the answers, but I feel compelled to ask the questions. Regarding AB, I feel the same way. Nobody wanted him to become a superstar more than me. After 2000, I was one of his biggest supporters. Then things started changing. First he stopped scrambling, then he started back-pedaling, then throwing ill-adivised passes and interceptions, and last year the fumbles. This year it seems to be a combination of all of the above. I think he has had a fair shake at it, and it just doesn\'t seem to be happening. The funny thing is that I feel that in the right scenario, he probably becomes and all-pro...if he could ever just learn to relax and play. I don\'t think that is going to happen here, and, what is really scary is that it may not be possible for anyone to make it here. Archie couldn\'t, and I think Archie was a pretty talented football player, but , somehow, this organization has always seemed to bring out the worst in it\'s players...and that seems to be the whole problem. Are we truly cursed?
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right!

11-13-2004, 06:38 PM	#42
Mull#5 Rookie Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 17	Brooks and Saints are losers Yeah, you hit the nail on the head, we have talented players and yet most of them do not play talentedly (if that is a word)....maybe there is a curse, i mean, remember game 15 last year vs. Jacksonville, what an amazing play, and then all we needed was an extra point from the sure footed Carney to take it in to overtime, but oh no, wide right and our playoff chances, however slim, GONE.....a curse hmmmm.....i think so.
Mull#5 Rookie Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 17

11-14-2004, 10:17 AM	#43
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Brooks and Saints are losers Yeah, there\'s a curse alright. His name is Jim Haslett.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

11-14-2004, 11:33 AM	#44
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Brooks and Saints are losers Ok, I hate these history arguments. I\'m sure you are all familiar with statistics and independent trials, so I\'ll spare you the details. Losing 30 years ago, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH losing now, NOTHING. Now, these arguments about the organization make some sense, since it is stable over several seasons at a time. Thus, if we fail to bring in good players, fail to develop them, and so on, OVER A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, then I\'m willing to buy the idea that there is some connection between losing this year and losing the pervious few years when the organization might be the cause of that. I think we have good reason to believe that players aren\'t developing here because of our current coaching staff, but, again, that has nothing to do with our history beyond the tenure of this coaching staft... nothing. Furthermore, to claim that the ownership is a bigger factor in wins and losses than any set of coaches and players seems to be way off base. In fact, I would be shocked if it were any more than the smallest of factors, but I\'m open to argument on this matter. With regard to being losers, do you just mean on the score board? Because if that is what you mean, the truth will be determined at the end of the season. Did you mean in some more general way? If so, I haven\'t heard any real argument one way or the other. Wow, I seem to be pretty peeved these days. I think seeing this thread again and again is starting to get to me. PS - Nice post RDOX.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

11-14-2004, 08:08 PM	#45
subguy 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: FL Posts: 2,057	Brooks and Saints are losers I am really glad we finally have a thread with an original non-rehashed topic. :bandhead:

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

12-08-2004, 06:50 AM	#46
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Brooks and Saints are losers Ok, I hate these history arguments. I\'m sure you are all familiar with statistics and independent trials, so I\'ll spare you the details. Losing 30 years ago, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH losing now, NOTHING. Now, these arguments about the organization make some sense, since it is stable over several seasons at a time. Thus, if we fail to bring in good players, fail to develop them, and so on, OVER A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, then I\'m willing to buy the idea that there is some connection between losing this year and losing the pervious few years when the organization might be the cause of that. I think we have good reason to believe that players aren\'t developing here because of our current coaching staff, but, again, that has nothing to do with our history beyond the tenure of this coaching staft... nothing. Furthermore, to claim that the ownership is a bigger factor in wins and losses than any set of coaches and players seems to be way off base. In fact, I would be shocked if it were any more than the smallest of factors, but I\'m open to argument on this matter. With regard to being losers, do you just mean on the score board? Because if that is what you mean, the truth will be determined at the end of the season. Did you mean in some more general way? If so, I haven\'t heard any real argument one way or the other. Wow, I seem to be pretty peeved these days. I think seeing this thread again and again is starting to get to me. PS - Nice post RDOX. How can you say that losing thirty years ago has nothing to do with losing now...that\'s pretty much the point of this thread. The Saints are losers now, just as they have been losers always. I mean, have they ever really won anything, besides a playoff game here, or maybe a division championship or two. The fact that they haven\'t even gotten close enough to a Superbowl to get a whiff makes them losers in my book, and AB is currently the loser in the spotlight. He follows a long line of losers before him that have played for this organization, and, unless something changes drastically, he will be followed by a long line of losers.
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right!

12-08-2004, 08:12 AM	#47
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Brooks and Saints are losers Why did you dig for this thread?

12-08-2004, 10:25 AM	#48
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Brooks and Saints are losers LB, Well, to answer your question, I pretty well said why I thought that in the passage you quoted. I don\'t think that there is no reason to argue something becuase \"the point of the thread\" goes against it. Do you? (Point 1) I\'ll recap though, since you seem to be interested: Those people who think there is a CAUSAL connection between what happened 30 years ago and what is happening now must say what it is. The only obvious connection is we have the same team name and same owner (I believe). Owners and names have little to do with winning or losing (at least in comparison to who is on the team and who is coaching it). Thus, this team loses for reasons that are (mostly? totally?) causally (since teams all lose in the same way - scoring fewer points than their opponent) unrelated to why a team 30 years ago lost. (Point 2) With respect to being losers because they haven\'t won a SB, well, if that is your definition of being a loser then Dan Marino is a loser. Something about that seems right, but something about that seems so wrong to say. There is no real point in arguing against this definition of being a loser, but it is very unintuitive to me to say that Dan is a loser. (Btw it also follows that Michael Jordan is a loser because he never got a whiff of a SB either, even if he was one of the greatest basketball players of all time on your definition.) BnB, :shrug:
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

12-08-2004, 02:47 PM	#49
RDOX 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 264	Brooks and Saints are losers Folks it goes to this. While we are talking history, remember, if you can (most of you were in diapers when this happened) when we got Jim Finks as GM. Finks strongly controlled Jim Mora, who in all honesty, was an unknown. Mora got known real quick, because he didn\'t have to worry about all of the player decisions and mess that Hazlett has to put up with. Finks also had a director of player personnel who was really the head scout, cap man, and overall talent evaluator of the team. All Mora had to do was coach. History does repeat itself, just in a different city. This time it\'s the city we all hate the most: Atlanta. Rich McKay handles all of the football operations and Baby Mora coaches the team. And that\'s all he does, coach. He doesn\'t have the same type of pressures and chaos that swirls around in the Saints organizaiton, because Rich McKay is doing all of the heavy lifting for him. End result. 10-2. Benson doesn\'t get it. He needs to hire a FOOTBALL minded GM and LEAVE HIM ALONE. I\'d also suspect that Arnold FieldCow(sp) is in there stirring the pot, and hasn\'t a clue about football operations either. He can hawk tickets though. The reason that LoomBoom is safe is because he doesn\'t cross FieldCow (Benson\'s personal BlowBoy) who wants to be boss of the whole thing, but doesn\'t have a clue about what it takes to run a professional sports franchise. We\'ve been in the toilet, ever since Finks died. That\'s the curse, Benson didn\'t have sense enough to find a Rich McKay type and leave him alone. Until that happens, we\'re hosed with a 10\" line at 500psi.
RDOX 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 264

12-08-2004, 02:55 PM	#50
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Brooks and Saints are losers FieldCow (Benson\'s personal BlowBoy) who wants to be boss of the whole thing :rollinglaugh: Now I don\'t care who you are--that\'s funny.