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

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Mike Sheppard: When the Browns moved to Baltimore a few years later, Sheppard went with them. He called plays for Ted Marchibroda's Ravens offense that ranked No. 3 in the league in 1996. He was eventually offensive coordinator in San ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-18-2005, 10:26 AM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?

Mike Sheppard:
When the Browns moved to Baltimore a few years later, Sheppard went with them. He called plays for Ted Marchibroda's Ravens offense that ranked No. 3 in the league in 1996.

He was eventually offensive coordinator in San Diego (1997-1998) and Buffalo (2001). His Chargers (Nos. 19 and 24) and Bills (No. 13) offenses were less successful.

Although Sheppard would not admit it, the offenses were hindered by average quarterback play. Craig Whelihan, Ryan Leaf and aging Stan Humphries quarterbacked his Chargers teams. Alex Van Pelt was the main signal-caller for Sheppard's one season in Buffalo, after which he was unceremoniously fired.
On this board I've read several posts that criticized the promotion of Mike Sheppard to offensive coordinator. I've yet to figure out why some folks are so critical of this move. Sheppard coached the 3rd ranked offense in Balitmore. He coached the 13th ranked offense in Buffalo.

Can someone give me a GOOD argument as to why you think Sheppard won't succeed in New Orleans? It seems to me that there is no GOOD arguement, it just wasn't the guy some of you wanted and it pisses you off?
GumboBC 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 02-18-2005, 10:39 AM   #2
Site Donor 2014
Truth Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spanish Fort Alabama
Posts: 17,128
Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?

The only reason I can think of is that he\'s not Charlie Weiss.
Danno is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 10:49 AM   #3
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?

The only reason I can think of is that he\'s not Charlie Weiss.
I think you\'re on to something there, Danno.

It\'s one thing to be negative. But, it\'s another thing not to back it up.

If anyone has half a brain, they know there\'s folks on this board who are going to bash any move that is made by Haslett and co.... To each their own, I suppose.

But I hear folks, who claim to be \"objective\" (or realists) that make statements and NEVER back them up.

Here\'s your chance folks. Here\'s your chance to show us how smart you are.

Give me your reasons as to why you think Sheppard won\'t be successful here in New Orleans?
GumboBC is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 11:34 AM   #4
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: baton rouge
Posts: 2,540
Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?

i\'m hopeful. a seriously simpler playbook can only be good for ab. we\'ll probably see in game one if they are a couple of those mid first quarter time outs cuz they play couldnt be got off in time.
LKelley67 is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 11:47 AM   #5
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,392
Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?


...it is actually VERY simple...

...it means NO CHANGE... it means STATUS QUO... what happened 9 years ago in Baltimore or in Buffalo 4 years ago has no bearing on the current Saints situation... not only that, but this is a move to cleary retain Brooks\' comfort zone...

... the Saints are going to end with basically the same players, basically the same coaches calling the same plays, and the same front office...

.. guess I should be \"optimistic\".. maybe in 2005 the Panthers will again be decimated by injuries, the Bucks would still suck, and Vick could get hurt...

..the law of averages says that your number eventrually comes up.. in the case of the Saints, it means eventually all teams will be as mediocre as they are and then they\'ll have a chance to do something, maybe that\'s what the Saints are counting on for next season; unfortunately, that was last year, and they couldn\'t capitalize...




[Edited on 18/2/2005 by Tobias-Reiper]

La neta es chida, pero inalcanzable
Tobias-Reiper is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 11:54 AM   #6
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?

Gator -- At least you\'re honest. And I can absolutely see your point. I think you don\'t neccesarily have a problem with Sheppard, you just want other changes made? Good post Gator.

Tobias-Reiper -- That wasn\'t a good arguement at all.

...it means NO CHANGE... it means STATUS QUO... what happened 9 years ago in Baltimore or in Buffalo 4 years ago has no bearing on the current Saints situation... not only that, but this is a move to cleary retain Brooks\' comfort zone...
No change? And you know this how? Give us something other than \"that\'s how I feel.\"

The success Shepard had in the past has no bearing on the current Saints\' situation? Going by that logic, I suppose getting Charlie Weiss would have made no difference? What the heck are tawkin\' bout? I don\'t get it!!


GumboBC is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 12:03 PM   #7
Deuce
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,881
Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?



If anyone has half a brain, they know there\'s folks on this board who are going to bash any move that is made by Haslett and co.... To each their own, I suppose.
But I hear folks, who claim to be \"objective\" (or realists) that make statements and NEVER back them up.
Is it just me, or are these fighting words?


Here\'s your chance folks. Here\'s your chance to show us how smart you are.
Oh, so that IS the whole purpose of this forum....for people to have an outlet to put their intelligence on display. I have often wondered if that was what some people were trying to do. You may recall me using the term, \"dazzle us with b/s.\"
That was just a colloquial way of saying, \"show us how smart you are.\"

Saint_LB is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 12:10 PM   #8
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?

Is it just me, or are these fighting words?
If you\'re one of those folks who criticize every move Haslett and co. make, then I was indeed talking to you. If not, then I was talking to someone else.

I\'m a Saints fan. I come here to hear objective opinions on the Saints. I don\'t come here to read we suck and we\'re always going to suck.

So, if what I said are fighting words ... then ... start swinging, my man ... :P

Oh, so that IS the whole purpose of this forum....for people to have an outlet to put their intelligence on display. I have often wondered if that was what some people were trying to do. You may recall me using the term, \"dazzle us with b/s.\"
That was just a colloquial way of saying, \"show us how smart you are
I\'d like to think the purpose of this board is to talk Saints\' football. But, even more than that, I\'d like to think we have guys here who look at things objectively. Saying we suck and we\'re always gonna suck is ... well .... you figure it out.

It isn\'t very insightful, to say the least.
GumboBC is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 12:11 PM   #9
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,392
Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?

Gator -- At least you\'re honest. And I can absolutely see your point. I think you don\'t neccesarily have a problem with Sheppard, you just want other changes made? Good post Gator.

Tobias-Reiper -- That wasn\'t a good arguement at all.

...it means NO CHANGE... it means STATUS QUO... what happened 9 years ago in Baltimore or in Buffalo 4 years ago has no bearing on the current Saints situation... not only that, but this is a move to cleary retain Brooks\' comfort zone...
No change? And you know this how? Give us something other than \"that\'s how I feel.\"

The success Shepard had in the past has no bearing on the current Saints\' situation? Going by that logic, I suppose getting Charlie Weiss would have made no difference? What the heck are tawkin\' bout? I don\'t get it!!

..you know, you are really, really good for comic relief...

... but I\'ll play, it\'s amusing..

.. Charlie Weiss would have made a DIFFERENCE because he would have brought HIS PLAYBOOK with him, whereas Sheppard is going to use the SIMPLIFIED MCCARTHY\'s PLAYBOOK ( or, as it is now known around the league, QB\'ng for Dummies)... Sheppard may bring a few proverbial wrinkles here and there, but no real change... no infusion of new blood, new perspective..

... how do I know that the Saints are going to have basically the same coaches? How many coaches are in the Saints coaching staff? How many left? How many came in? There, basically no change in the coaching staff..

..players, a couple will go, a couple will come, a few will be drafted (3 of them who\'ll never see the playing field)...

..anyone left/ got fired in the front office? At all?


La neta es chida, pero inalcanzable
Tobias-Reiper is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 12:21 PM   #10
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?

You\'re one of those guys who I have a hard time understanding.

Let\'s examine some of your brilliance!!

Sheppard is going to use the SIMPLIFIED MCCARTHY\'s PLAYBOOK ( or, as it is now known around the league, QB\'ng for Dummies)
I respect the fact that you have an opinion. I respect that fact that you posts those opinions. But, it sounds more like you hold a grudge rather than bringing something that someone can take seriously.



Do you really expect me to take posts like that serious. Tell me ONE play in that playbook?

ATTACK? # 2- WHO CARES?

[Edited on 18/2/2005 by JOESAM2002]
GumboBC is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2014 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts