Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

I don't put a lot of stock in what Detillier has to say. But that's just me. I wanted to post this so you guys could read it.

Taken from another board:

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

So if any of this is true, and they are thinking of cutting Sullivan if they can trade Howard, should we still give him one more chance? Sounds like the team might not be, and I would be dancing in the streets. No more free rides Sully. Hope you made enough to live on. No more free buffets while you collect a check.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

How pitiful would it be if Sully is outplayed by an undersized 6th round rookie?

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Danno --

Well if Jefferson turns out to be the run-stuffing DT that w\'eve been needing, then it could mean the end for Sullivan.

However, I have no faith when it comes to Detillier\'s \"inside\" knowledge of what\'s going on with the Saints. NONE!!

And I\'m not so sure what to think about Detillier\'s \"scouting\" abilities?

It is surprising to me to see Detillier talk so highly of our draft picks. Talk about taking a 180. Detillier is usually very harsh of ANYthing Haslett and co. do.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Kinda what we all thought

I hope so. It was stated he had a better combine workout than many LB\'s picked in front of him, including Kevin Burnette UT.
Don\'t know much about this kid. Is he that good?
I\'ll bet Sullivan doesn\'t even have a clue this guy may take his job.

C\'mon Jefferson, move on up, to the east side, to a deeee-lux apartment in the sky-y-y.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Like I said, if this is true, I do not think cutting Sullivan would be an announcement of Jefferson\'s overwhelming talent. I think if Jefferson shows some ability, the Sullivan pick is a message to the rest of the team that under-performing and being overweight will no longer be tolerated. It is time to shed the underachiever label this team has been saddled with. Wasn\'t there a guy with Sully in the booth when Sully was in ATL? Smith or something? He was cut the next day, yet Sully was still collecting checks. It would be HUGE for them to admit their mistake on Sully, and it would be HUGE to show the rest of the team enough is enough. Talking to you Donte. Talking to you Allen. Talking to AB. Anyone who is not pulling their weight is gone, regardless of the consequences. Kinda like NE. I like it, if it\'s true.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

saintswhodi --

You think cutting Sully is a message that needs to be sent?

What message did it send when Haslett cut Tebucky Jones?

What message did it send when Haslett got rid of Grady Jackson?

I mean, how many messages need to be sent?

I\'m really not interested in any more \"messages\" being sent. All I\'m worried about is getting the best players on the field.


[Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Yup, they sent the right message with Tebucky, and they sent the right message with Grady. Let me ask you, what message is being sent when one healthy guy who is inactive but goes and eats at the ATL media buffet is cut, and another isn\'t? What message does it send that no matter how hard someone else works, a fat lazy, underachiever will be in front of them on the depth chart? What message does it send to keep players like that around? When they cut these players, it sends a message that we are no longer wanthing that kind of atmosphere here. Tebucky wasn\'t cutting it, so bye. Grady was eating more players than he was tackling, bye. Same goes for Sully. I don\'t care how many messages it takes as long as at some point they deliver the right one.

Well, we all know sully is not one of the best players so problem solved.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

whodi --

I COULD ask what kind of message is being sent when you draft a convicted thief?

I COULD say that by drafting a convicted thief that it sends a message to the team that they\'ll be given another chance in New Orleans.

But, I\'m not!! ;)

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Or you could just ask the questions instead of being cheeky.

Here are my thoughts on Sully from the other thread on the same topic:

I suppose, to make this topical, we\'d have to know the value of \"sending a message\". My guess is that it would have little to no impact, unless there are a lot of lazy guys on our team. Most other players fight for (and to keep) starting jobs. I\'m not seeing a lot of guys who could care less about whether they play, start, or whatever. If there aren\'t very many such players (and I actually doubt there are), then the message will not get to anyone who needs to hear it.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

And I could tell you the message being sent by drafting McPherson is hey, we will give you a SECOND chance, just not INFINITE chances. Do you agree Sully has had more than once chance to prove himself even a half decent football player? I say hell yes he has. He had training camp last year, when he reported fat. Didn\'t get underweight before the season. Due to ineffectiveness was made inactive. Then abused the fact that he was inactive to make a bigger joke of the team. I would say what is being asked to keep him is more than a SECOND chance. It\'s closer to infinite. Then he says he has a changed attitude, and still shows up overweight to the conditioning program. I don\'t care if it was 20 pounds as opposed to 50, overweight is overweight. What was he doing the whole time he wasn\'t playing but eating.

Kool, you seem to be of the opinion the only message that can be sent by cutting Sully is don\'t be lazy, and thus would require an overwhelming number of lazy players to be sent. Not at all. You can send the message to players who seem to have gotten complacent that they need to improve too. That positions on this team are no longer an entitlement, but they are earned. It doesn\'t just effect lazy players, it effects the whole atmosphere of a team of underachievers. If I am there, and they cut a guy they gave up two first round draft picks for just two years ago, I am no longer under the impression that I am sitting in the catbird seat and I actually need to get ny but in gear. If not, I could be next. And it needs to be like that IMO.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Whodi,

1. What do you think of my Sunk Cost idea?

2. Not by merely cutting Sullivan - that is ambiguous. It seems obvious that cutting Sullivan says don\'t be lazy. If you want it to say \"don\'t be complacent\", then you need to have some way of conveying that to the players. If that is so, you could convey \"don\'t be complacent\" without cutting anyone. I\'m not saying such a message couldn\'t be sent, but it won\'t be sent by merely cutting Sully.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

I think the main message it\'ll send is we don\'t play favorites anymore. We don\'t care how much it costs to cut you, if its the best thing to do for this team, WE WILL DO IT!

Take that 11.5 and shove it up your:censored:!!!

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Here\'s what the article says: Now to me, that seems like more than just a don\'t be lazy message is gonna be sent by cutting Sully. Sully wasn\'t just lazy, he showed up to camp overweight, stayed overweight, and still was the day one starter. That sends a message that no matter what you do, you will keep your job. They started sending the message that was unacceptable halfway through the season. This will complete the message IMO. No more complacency. I guess we just see what the message would be differently. TO me, cutting Sully is a damn good way to send a message, especially if they are gonna meet with the teambefore that to let them know how things are gonna be.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Exactly Danno. That is what I am trying to say.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

JKool, IMHO, is right. You don\'t have to cut players to send any message. Although, I admit, cutting a player could send a message. I just don\'t know if that is required.

Anyway, like I said, I\'m not really worried about cutting someone to send a message.

IF Sully gets cut, I hope it\'s for the right reasons(s)

IF Sully can help us win some ball games, then he shouldn\'t be cut.

If the coaching staff thinks he\'s not going to help, then he should be cut.

The only message that\'s going to be sent by cutting Sullivan is that the New Orleans Saints messed up by drafting Sullivan in the first place. Maybe that should be a message to the front-office and the coaching staff!!

JKool -- I have a comment on this question:

A \"sunk cost\" is a cost that you have already incurred and that you cannot recover.

I don\'t see how this applies to Sullivan. As we don\'t know if it can be recovered or not.

Whenever you make a decision, it has to be made according to what you know now and upon reasonable expectations of the future. Hoping that bad results from a past decision will eventually \"turn around\" if you stick with that decision is wishful thinking of the worst sort. It always takes courage to admit you made a bad choice and that you need to change your mind, but it is the only thing to do. It takes even more courage to try to convince others that they made bad choices and need to accept the sunk costs, but that\'s something you sometimes have to do.

The only real question is will Sullivan ever pay off. And if you\'ve got the answer to that question ... I\'m all ears? ;)

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Actually, Gumbo, a sunk cost is any cost that has been incurred in the past. That makes it irrelevant to rational decision making about what to do in the future. It is not about recoverable or not recoverable - it is explicitly NOT about that kind of thing. See my example above (and any finance text).

Danno and Whodi, fine examples. I have changed my view on the message it might send. I just don\'t think cutting a player is necessary to making such a statement - in fact, it might be a very costly way to do so.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

whodi, when given a 2nd chance and someone shows improvement, that\'s good...............when they fall by the wayside and have shown they can improve, i say another chance is acceptable..........would\'nt you want it it you were trying yet still tempted by whatever? change for the better is good but when trying to start anew it does take time in most cases......however, if they never show improvement or even try to show improvement then it becomes up to them to find themself, not you, to continually show them them the door they refuse to go through..........if they don\'t want to help themself, nothing anyone does will make a difference...at which point, the f.o. should say, we\'ll pray for you, goodluck.
smitty

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

No, that\'s not what \"sunk\" cost means.

SUNK cost means that you can NEVER recover. Hence: SUNK.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

With this team, I think that\'s the point. What message does it send if it doesn\'t hurt the team at all to cut Sullivan? That sends absolutely no message at all. They are incurring no penalty for cutting a player who has yet to prove any worth to the team. But when cutting a player may actually harm the team in some way, and you do it anyway, you send the meassge that whatever it takes to make this team better, it will be done. That\'s why I like it. It takes no balls for them to cut a player that causes no effect to do so. But taking a cap hit to get an underachieving player off your team sends a huge message. Besides the message that hey, we messed up, and we are making amends. Good idea IMO.

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by saintswhodi]

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

I stand corrected on the notion of recoverable:

Sunk Cost
From: http://www.definethat.com/define/337.htm

Either way, my point stands. Sully\'s cost of 2 1st rounders and his signing bonus are sunk fixed costs - they cannot be recovered. The marginal (and variable) costs (such his current and future salary - as I noted above) those are still open to question.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Doesn\'t cutting T-buck send the message then?

Furthermore, I don\'t see why you\'d have to hurt yourself to send a message. In fact, by hurting the team\'s cap, you\'re actually saying that you\'re not willing to do what it takes to make the team better (since you\'re throwing away money that could be used to make the team better).

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Okay ... now we\'re getting somehere. It\'s true Sully cost 2 first round draft picks. But is it realistic to expect Sully to amount to 2 first round draft picks. I think you take that out of the equasion. It wasn\'t Sully\'s fault SOMEone gave that much to draft him. And it\'s not realistic to expect him to live up to that.

You have to ask yourself these questions, IMHO.

1. How good do you expect Sullivan to ultimately be?
2. Is is \"worth\" what he costs?
3. How long do you stick with him before cutting him.
4. How much improvement should he show this year? Next year? The year after?

With th info. I have, I say it\'s in the best interest of the team to give him ONE more shot. If there are any major setbacks, we HAVE to get rid of him and move on.



[Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Cutting T-Buck is part of sending the message. The message isn\'t just a change here or there. If I have three dogs, two of them bite people and one doesn\'t, and my neighbors complain they are being bit, and I am really upset over this, and I have the dog who is not biting put to sleep, that sends zero message correct? Then if they still complain, so I put one of the biting dogs to sleep, that sends a slight message correct? But if the other dog is not put to sleep, and he keeps biting, the message that I am really upset that my dogs have harmed people would never get across. By putting both biting dogs to sleep, I have sent a full message to my neighbors that I am sorry for the acts my dog committed. T-Buck was one of the heads that needed to be cut off, Sully is another. I guess like I said we are gonna just see the message different. No worries.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Billy, I think we\'re saying the same thing.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Whodi,

Why kill both dogs? Why not kill one and send a message to the other?

I don\'t think we\'re disagreeing on the message thing - I conceded that point before.

Still, it may be a bad way to send the message, when it can be done in other ways.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

saintwhodi --

Cutting every player that has shown to be a consistent underachiever isn\'t a bad idea. In principle !!!

But, logically, it makes very little sense. If we did that, it stands to chance, that we\'d be getting rid of some players who might contribute significantly in the future.

Some draft picks pay big dividends in their 1st year. But that\'s not the rule-of-thumb.

Most any coach will tell you that it takes 3-years MINIMUM to effectively judge a draft pick.

What Sullivan has done is very troubling. But he hasn\'t \"stole\" anything. He\'s just been overpaid based on his \"effort.\"

Did Deuce \"steal\" by showing up out of shape? By your logic Deuce \"stole\" from the Saints. Just not as much as Sullivan.

Who\'s the bigger thief? Someone who steals a dollar or someone who steal a million dollars?

A theif is a theif!!!

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

by drafting a guy that paid his dues in the arena league for on year and admitted what he did was wrong? Has fat a$$ ever admitted to being fat and lazy.....i dunno. I rather have a guy that has worked his a$$(mad a bad decision), then a fat lazy check collector who continues his behavior(stuffing his fat face)!!

out

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Um Gumbo, Deuce is a pro bowler and considered one of the best backs in the league. Sullivan has done NOTHING but regress. How you draw that comparison, I have no idea. This is not excusing Deuce, but they changed the offense he was successful in he openly voiced frustration, and didn\'t put forth his best effort. Not excusing it, but there is a reason. Sully again has done NOTHING. Again, how do you even draw the comparison?



Kool, dogs are dumb. If I put one to sleep, it is gonna make very little difference to the other dog, they simply do not have the intelligence to understand the reason the other dog is gone is because he was biting. He just knows he likes biting, and now he gets to do more cause the other dog is gone. Like I said, IMO, cuttingbenching Sully last year started a message. Cuttung T-Buck, helped the mssage along, and if they are gonna meet with the team BEFORE they cut Sully, I think the final messahe would then be sent. And once again, I like it.

BAck to GumboThat\'s three years if they are playing correct? I don;t think it takes three years to evaluate a player who was benched in his second year due to being fat and lazy. I don\'t think it takes three years to evaluate a player whose answer is 11.5(amount he was paid) when asked if he is concerned about playing. I don;t think it takes three years to evaluate a player who instead of doing everything in his power to play, would rather eat in the ATL buffet line FOR THE MEDIA before an improtant game for his team. You need three years to evaluate that? I don\'t.

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by saintswhodi]

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

How do I draw the comparison? Because you called Sullivan a thief. Thiefs steal things.

Deuce showed up out of shape and got hurt. We finished 26th in rushing. Would Deuce have gotten injured if he was in better shape? Impossible to say for sure.

But, we paid Deuce to show up in shape and give 100%.

Isn\'t that a \"thief\" in your book?

How much does someone need to steal before he\'s a thief in your book?

One dollar? Five? Ten? Million?

The last time I checked ... a thief was a thief?!

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Why not just be \"logical\" instead of asking questions like this?

No, it doesn\'t mean it takes 3 years IF a player is playing.

Devery Hendeson didn\'t play last year. Stinchcomb hasn\'t played for 2-years. That has nothing to do with it.

Some players are able to play earlier due to a number of different reasons.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

We finished 26th in rushing cause of a crap offense installed by our crap coordinator who is now gone. Did Deuce still go over 1000 yards? Was Deuce\'s running a big part of the reason we won the last 4 games? Did Sully have anything to do with that us winning any of those games at all? No. There\'s no comparison. But you will make one to defend players you like. Come off it. Deuce has earned every cent he has been paid. Your comparison is faulty and really not worth too much effort so this is my last word on it. If you wanna convince people Deuce and Sully are in any way shapr or form close to similar, have at it. Why don\'t you go to NFL.com and tell ne how many games an injured Deuce played in, and how many a 100% healthy Sully played in and tell me who has more.

What\'s no tlogical about the question? Cause it eliminates Sully? I guess that\'s it. Are you expecting Stinchcomb to come in and be a pro bowler?I am not. He hasn\'t played. I expect him to be learning when he does play, cause he has not been in game situations. But he is learning, so I expect him TO BE BETTER than when he first came in the league. Like Henderson. I expect him TO BE BETTER cause he is actually learning. I do not expect him to be a pro bowler, and if it takes longer than 3 years so be it, he didn\'t play a whole year. Sullivan on the other hand played all of year one of his career, and REGRESSED. Got worse, attitude, play, whatever. WORSE. So if anything it will take him longer than the required 3 years. Why not be logical before you ask someone to clarify things for you?

Your statement was this How does a coach evaluate a player if that player doesn\'t play? So again, how would that make my question illogical? You think coaches evalaute players by what they do in practice and if they don\'t play in games, so be it? So what you are saying is a player could ride the bench for 3 years, and be evaluated only in practice, and coaches would them play them in the 4th year and expect them to perform at a high level with no game time cause they evaluated them in practice? Okay.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

gumbo honestly you cant make a comparison between deuce and sully. i mean that is just silly. it isnt even apples and oranges. its more like apples and lasagna with roasted peppers and eggplant. i was hoping sully was serious about getting better. i mean i hope the guy does something or wants to. if not cut him. why not. with mcpherson he was drafted in the 5th round. he made mistakes before he was a saint and on top of that he was a kid. more then that im not even sure what he did. at least he wasnt beating his girlfriend. what he did to me wasnt that serious. i would probally worry more about the guy that keeps having his name involved in beating women or raping them. thats just me.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

another good thread. it seems there is a little more civility than of late. that draft thing does escalate the emotions i believe. and rightly so for passionate fans. sorry for not contributing more this week. i really am still coming to grips with the draft. i appreciate the effort that goes into many of these thoughtful discussions, partaking or not.

not as any mr. meassge board guy or anything i do have one comment about how discussions have gone that might be helpful generally. that is, i think there will be much more productive dialogue if there is restraint from telling other people what they think. \"you said this so you think this\" lines more often stir ire rather than create constructive interchange. if questioning someone\'s viewpoint ask a question, don\'t put their answers in a blank for them. contesting or refuting another is most effective when not nitpicking the other\'s words but in presenting sound logical rebuttals.
not football talk but a respectful atmosphere (no matter how vast the differences are) will make for a better and more attractive board.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

I suggest that we take Kelley\'s suggestion to heart.

Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!
 

Deuce didn\'t get hurt because he was out of shape, he got hurt because his linemen got out of the way and let a couple of 49ers twist his leg in half. Let\'s see.....one of the more successful backs this team has had vs one of the biggest busts they\'ve had. It just isn\'t in the same ballpark. I can\'t believe i even addressed it.

There is a very simple and clear distinction between AMac and Sully, and any draft expert will tell you this. 5th round steal vs. 1st round reach.....period. End of discussion. If we would have gone for Adrian in the 1st round, and he got caught stealing from the locker room next year, there would be a parallel. We paid a high price for Sully and have gotten nothing. Anything we get from Adrian will be gravy. His upside is tremendous as a 5th rounder. And you freakin send him packing if he acts up......without any cap hit to boot. I don\'t see why this is even a discussion.