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

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; ScottyRo, we have bumped heads recently but that is a damn fine assessment and very much worth considering. Good analysis dude. I am truly impressed. I am glad I heard you out before tuning it out. Damn fine thinking my ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-27-2005, 10:18 AM   #11
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..

ScottyRo, we have bumped heads recently but that is a damn fine assessment and very much worth considering. Good analysis dude. I am truly impressed. I am glad I heard you out before tuning it out. Damn fine thinking my man. :salute:
saintswhodi is offline  
Latest Blogs
REFUND Last Blog: 12-07-2014 By: xan




Saints: A glimpse of the future Last Blog: 11-19-2014 By: lee909


Old 01-27-2005, 11:28 AM   #12
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,417
You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..

Scotty,

I totally agree!

That is what I said last year, but I\'ve got to tell you Horn was just the capstone. Glover and Knight were the other two. Glover was no-namer from the Raiders and Knight was an undrafted FA.

This team fell in love with its ability to get the no namer to be a star. That completely explains the Ruff pick.

However, it doesn\'t explain the Tebucky trade or the McKenzie trade. It seems to me that is one in the right direction and another in the wrong. Rodgers was a solid, but not great acquisition. I guess, I\'m trying to decide if they\'re starting to get out of the \"Horn rut\" that you pointed out.

The team is not \"cheap\". The problems are these:
(1) Scotty\'s problem pointed out here.
(2) Inability to develop players. Notice that Glover, Horn, and Knight are all products of a different set of coaches.
(3) Unwillingness to get \"overpay\" to get \"proven comodities\". Sure, I\'m not about wasting money, but how much did we pay Ruff? Too much.

For several years I\'ve been saying that it is FA that is really killing our chances. We completely sucked in FA for the last, well, many years.

Oh please get us one of those many great OTs available in FA this year, please!

[Edited on 27/1/2005 by JKool]

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks :cool:
JKool is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 12:23 PM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..

It\'s really hard to get a point across sometimes. But let me try anyway!!

I\'ve heard all the talk about \"coaching\" being the problem.

I\'m inclined to agree with that statement.

But not with the reasoning some have laid out.

I don\'t think its in the X\'s and O\'s on offense. I think its in the personnel. More specifically, I think Deuce being injured and the offensive line was MOST of the problem this year. Not all, but MOST.

On defense, I totally think it is X\'s and O\'s!! But again, that\'s not all of the problems. There simply isn\'t enough good talent at certain spots to be a great defense. But there\'s enough to be much better than what we were.. as seen by the last 4-games.

The defense was day and night when compared with the first 12-games. SOMEONE changed the scheme over the last 4-games and we saw an attacking defense. Venturi needs to go, IMHO.

More than anything, I think talent evaluation and Venturi\'s scheme have been major problems on defense.

Haslett\'s insistence on keeping Ventui is reason enough for Haslett to be fired.

McCarthy, well, I can\'t say the same thing. Just too many things outside of McCarthys control that have contributed to the lack of success on offense.

And while I can see a good case for Haz being fired, I can\'t pin all of the personnel moves on him. I just don\'t know that to be true.

I really have my doubts about Loomis and Benson.

GumboBC is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 12:31 PM   #14
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,417
You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..

Billy,

I agree that Xs and Ox were a huge issue with the Defense this year. Several of us had a long discussion about this around midseason.

However, when I look at our LBs - we have two rookies, one with a big heart and another who has all the skills but ends up out of position rather easily. After that, NO ONE. Rodgers, I believe is done, and he wasn\'t anything special anyway. Allen - NO! We need at least one LB.

Also at CB, Thomas was hurt, but he was hurt and now a year older. McKenzie is good, but some of his success was due to teams not having time to look at the role he played here for more than a game or two (so it was harder to game plan against him). Don\'t get me wrong, I think he\'s the man, but I saw him play in GB, a lot, and I think when we settle down, well see that he is very good, not great. After that, we have Craft, Brown, and who, oh yeah no one of note. I think we\'re short a CB honestly. Thomas or Brown could get the job done with a good rush, but they don\'t exactly strike fear into the heart of the enemy.

Tebucky. I\'m in the minority here. I think he\'s fine, but we pay him too much.

SS. I think Mitchell can do it, but that is guess, at best! Bellamy, sooner or later the old man won\'t be able to get the job done. He\'s Ambrose now, but not as fast... yikes!

Our DEs are studs. Young is a fine DT, but he gets pushed around a lot without help. We either need a DT, or that fat guy we drafted needs to step up. Our inside isn\'t that great right now.

I guess, my assessment, as of this minute, is that personnel is also an issue - not just scheme.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks :cool:
JKool is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 12:39 PM   #15
500th Post
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 954
You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..

1 . benson has got to open his check book
baronm is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 12:41 PM   #16
500th Post
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 954
You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..

1 . benson has got to open his check book
2. loomis has got to start drafting better players
3. the coaches have got to use those players effectively
4. we need players who can understand a basic offense and have the motivation to play everyday--as well as will put the blame on thier backs instead of blaming others--none of which brooks has shown to be capable of doing.
baronm is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 12:46 PM   #17
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Williamsburg, VA (aka Southern Canada)
Posts: 1,689
You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..

we have bumped heads recently but that is a damn fine assessment
Thanks for the kind words Whodi. But don\'t get to thinking that I\'m not gonna bash heads with you in the future. What would be the fun in that?

McCarthy, well, I can\'t say the same thing. Just too many things outside of McCarthys control that have contributed to the lack of success on offense.
So since there are too many things outside of his control, when the team has had success we shouldn\'t give him credit? I mean, it\'s outside of his control isn\'t it? When the offense does wel,l it\'s inspite of him right?
ScottyRo is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 12:53 PM   #18
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..

So since there are too many things outside of his control, when the team has had success we shouldn\'t give him credit? I mean, it\'s outside of his control isn\'t it? When the offense does wel,l it\'s inspite of him right?
I\'ve listed all the things that I thought were outside of McCarthy\'s control:

1. Poor offensive line play.
2. Stupid penalties.
3. Injurys. Mainly Deuce.

What I\'m saying is when he hasn\'t had to contend with those things (which is rarely) our offense has done well.

Of course when our offense does well McCarthy deserves some of the credit. Not all, the players have a lot to do with any success.
GumboBC is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 02:26 PM   #19
Kinder, gentler
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: dirty south
Posts: 3,889
You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..

The problem can be the coach, without it actually being a problem with coaching. Like having a problem with a moron, but not actually having a problem with his moronic activities.

[Edited on 27/1/2005 by BlackandBlue]
BlackandBlue is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 02:32 PM   #20
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..

The problem can be the coach, without it actually being a problem with coaching. Like having a problem with a moron, but not actually having a problem with his moronic activities.

[Edited on 27/1/2005 by BlackandBlue]
That\'s deep !! :P


JoeSam shoud get a kick out of that one.

You clever dog...

I\'ll get you back!! Its coming..
GumboBC is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:39 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2014 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts