Norv Turner

FrenzyFan · 12-08-2005, 07:51 AM

This isn't Saints related, except by illustration. I found this article on NFL.com.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/OAK/9083366

The article is about the benching of Kerry Collins, and this quote is simply marvelous:

Originally Posted by NFL.com

With no postseason to play for, the Raiders ("4-8") are casting an eye toward the future. Oakland coach Norv Turner gave Tuiasosopo the nod and announced he will start Dec. 11 on the road against the New York Jets.

I am interested to see what our B&G membership thinks of this. Is Norv Turner right or is Jim Haslett? Is it the coach's job to "try to win as many games as possible" or to "look to the future". Oakland's record is better than ours, so at present their draft status is less valuable than ours.

My opinion is, of course, that Turner is making the right decision.

Tobias-Reiper · 12-08-2005, 08:53 AM

... Turner is right for 2 reasons:

1.- as stated, if you are not going to the playoffs, see what you have sitting on your bench. Evaluating in trainig camp/practice is definitely not the same as evaluating on the field of play.

2.- Give the fans not only a break from the frustration, but something to cheer for and look forward to. I think that most fans will rather see a rookie struggle and make bonehead plays, knowing that he's a rookie and he needs time, than a 5-6 year veteran doing the same boneheaded plays over and over again. I also think that fans would rather evaluate rookies and backups in real game situations, even if the team loses the game, especially when you are playing just because you have to play 16 games, and nothing else...

In the case of the Saints, Haslett says Aaron gives the Saints the best chance to win...
Win what???
1 football game? 2?
I'd rather watch Adrian struggle and make bonehead plays... at least I can fool myself into believing that all of that physical talent will someday flourish into an NFL QB, rather than just confirm, Sunday after Sunday, season after season, what I have known for 4 years...

yasoon · 12-08-2005, 10:18 AM

I am interested to see what our B&G membership thinks of this. Is Norv Turner right or is Jim Haslett?

I thought the same thing you guys thought when I saw this move. Collins has been around, Marcus T. has seen spot duty....a good chance to see what the kid has when the playoffs are out of reach. Helps you make better decisions in the offseason.

To say that a man who singlehandedly lost a game for you gives you the best chance to win is vintage Haz/Brooks. I wanna see Amac...I don't care if we lose, it will bring some excitement to Saints fans.

xan · 12-08-2005, 01:35 PM

I think that the issue is that there are 52 other players giving it their all and by benching Brooks, the implicit statement is that these 52 will be accountable for a loss, but AMac won't. That sets up a frustrated and unmotivated lockerroom (could it get any lower?). Hey, I'm not advocating starting Brooks (you'll never hear that from me), I'm just giving the other side of the argument.

FrenzyFan · 12-08-2005, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by xan

I think that the issue is that there are 52 other players giving it their all and by benching Brooks, the implicit statement is that these 52 will be accountable for a loss, but AMac won't. That sets up a frustrated and unmotivated lockerroom (could it get any lower?). Hey, I'm not advocating starting Brooks (you'll never hear that from me), I'm just giving the other side of the argument.

Good points, and I understand the argument. What I question is what is best for the team, "trying to win games" when the season is lost or evaluating young players in real game situations when winning/losing really doesn't matter. That leads me to the uncertainty; is it a real game situation when winning/losing doesn't matter? Does that kind of game experience give a reasonably accurate portrait?

I happen to believe the latter (that its better to play the young guys), but am open to persuasion on the topic.

xan · 12-08-2005, 03:24 PM

I don't know about the "winning and losing don't matter" part.

In order to evaluate the talent, the talent has to have a direction. If the offense is trying to do X on any particular play, and it takes 11 guys to achieve X, then each of those guys are going to be evaluated on the relative achievement of X in whole and in part. The play to achieve X has context (that is to say, a situation and parameters); onfield decisions and conditions can alter the play. Each player has to react to the conditions and instructions. X cannot be "stand still" or "throw an interception" or "miss a block" or "make an inappropriate arm tackle". X has to have a positive goal and the players roles in that play must be positive components for achieving X. By definition, the cumulative sum of all X's is winning. Therefore the game HAS to matter in order for the evaluation to be meaningful.

This wouldn't be true of one argues for random football, where the plays may not make sense for the situation and the player next to you may or may not decide to do his job (or communicate that he's going to do something different.)

BlackandBlue · 12-08-2005, 05:05 PM

Casting an eye to the future? Don't think so. We've all seen Tuiasosopo play, he's been in the league for five years. We know what he is...a good backup. If he wanted to truly evaluate the future, Walter would be starting.
I think Norv is trying to create a spark. Why would he cast everything aside to "cast an eye to the future," a future that he won't be a part of?

gandhi1007 · 12-08-2005, 05:11 PM

First of all, the only thing that Aaron Brooks gives us a chance to win is the ESPY award for "Bonehead Play of the Year." Secondly, if we don't play young players in real game situations when we have the chance, when do we evaluate them? In pre-season games? No, with absolutely no chance of making the playoffs, you play the youngsters & evaluate your talent in real game situations. You never know what's on your bench. Does anyone remember a young Tom Brady coming off the bench & leading New England to a Super Bowl (not to mention the 2 after that)? Not a single person out there was thinking: "Hey, that kid on New England's bench-If he ever gets a chance to play, he'll be the next Joe Montana!" How badly can you hurt a team that has played like crap all year by playing a youngster? Besides, even if the guy doesn't play well, it can't be any worse than Brooks. Play A-Mac & see what he has. Let stupid (Brooks) sit on the bench & visit w/ his sugar daddy-Haslett!

CheramieIII · 12-08-2005, 07:39 PM

You know we need to bench everyone that has brought us to this juncture in the season. That means AB, some offensive lineman and defensive players too. If you never let them know that they have a chance to lose their job they will never excel. Haslett is stupid, plain and simple. He is sitting at home right now thinking that the Hurricane saved his arse, but it only gave him a one year break. Because he won't have that excuse next year. So Mr. Haslett better be looking for your next profession now while you have the time.

Tobias-Reiper · 12-08-2005, 10:39 PM

... that the "game doesn't matter" is not really true... if you take the next game as example, while the "game doesn't matter" to the Saints' standings since they are all but out of the playoff pciture, it does matter to the Falcons, doesn't it? They are going to come out and try to win the thing... so you'd put a youngster like Adrian in a real game situation, where the opposing team is actually trying to win the game and trying to take his head off; where he doesn't know what defense the other team is going to run; where he doesn't wear the red shirt...

..as far as the other 44 players who dress up for the game, really, what's the difference?

If you are the defense, you know that your offense can't score points with the "1st string" QB playing and they turn the ball over like no one else in the entire league... what could possibly be the outcome of staring a rookie? The offense not scoring any points?? Couple more fumbles? Not much change there, uh?

If you are special teams, well, you are going to either fumble the kick/punt, or shank the field goal, regardless of who's playing QB...

If you are the offense, hey! you could have a scrambling QB who's going to keep drives alive... or maybe, just maybe Oh God!! a QB who throws the football IN FRONT of the receivers...

12-08-2005, 07:51 AM	#1
FrenzyFan 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 406	Norv Turner This isn't Saints related, except by illustration. I found this article on NFL.com. http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/OAK/9083366 The article is about the benching of Kerry Collins, and this quote is simply marvelous: Originally Posted by NFL.com With no postseason to play for, the Raiders ("4-8") are casting an eye toward the future. Oakland coach Norv Turner gave Tuiasosopo the nod and announced he will start Dec. 11 on the road against the New York Jets. I am interested to see what our B&G membership thinks of this. Is Norv Turner right or is Jim Haslett? Is it the coach's job to "try to win as many games as possible" or to "look to the future". Oakland's record is better than ours, so at present their draft status is less valuable than ours. My opinion is, of course, that Turner is making the right decision.
FrenzyFan 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 406	\"The AB brand of TP will hurt your O-ring.\" - BlackandBlue http://www.darrylbercegeay.com/wsmith1.jpg

12-08-2005, 08:53 AM	#2
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	... Turner is right for 2 reasons: 1.- as stated, if you are not going to the playoffs, see what you have sitting on your bench. Evaluating in trainig camp/practice is definitely not the same as evaluating on the field of play. 2.- Give the fans not only a break from the frustration, but something to cheer for and look forward to. I think that most fans will rather see a rookie struggle and make bonehead plays, knowing that he's a rookie and he needs time, than a 5-6 year veteran doing the same boneheaded plays over and over again. I also think that fans would rather evaluate rookies and backups in real game situations, even if the team loses the game, especially when you are playing just because you have to play 16 games, and nothing else... In the case of the Saints, Haslett says Aaron gives the Saints the best chance to win... Win what??? 1 football game? 2? I'd rather watch Adrian struggle and make bonehead plays... at least I can fool myself into believing that all of that physical talent will someday flourish into an NFL QB, rather than just confirm, Sunday after Sunday, season after season, what I have known for 4 years...
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

12-08-2005, 10:18 AM	#3
yasoon 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 594	I am interested to see what our B&G membership thinks of this. Is Norv Turner right or is Jim Haslett? I thought the same thing you guys thought when I saw this move. Collins has been around, Marcus T. has seen spot duty....a good chance to see what the kid has when the playoffs are out of reach. Helps you make better decisions in the offseason. To say that a man who singlehandedly lost a game for you gives you the best chance to win is vintage Haz/Brooks. I wanna see Amac...I don't care if we lose, it will bring some excitement to Saints fans.
yasoon 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 594

12-08-2005, 02:07 PM	#5
FrenzyFan 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 406	Originally Posted by xan I think that the issue is that there are 52 other players giving it their all and by benching Brooks, the implicit statement is that these 52 will be accountable for a loss, but AMac won't. That sets up a frustrated and unmotivated lockerroom (could it get any lower?). Hey, I'm not advocating starting Brooks (you'll never hear that from me), I'm just giving the other side of the argument. Good points, and I understand the argument. What I question is what is best for the team, "trying to win games" when the season is lost or evaluating young players in real game situations when winning/losing really doesn't matter. That leads me to the uncertainty; is it a real game situation when winning/losing doesn't matter? Does that kind of game experience give a reasonably accurate portrait? I happen to believe the latter (that its better to play the young guys), but am open to persuasion on the topic.
FrenzyFan 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 406

12-08-2005, 05:11 PM	#8
gandhi1007 Part Time Pimp Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,967	First of all, the only thing that Aaron Brooks gives us a chance to win is the ESPY award for "Bonehead Play of the Year." Secondly, if we don't play young players in real game situations when we have the chance, when do we evaluate them? In pre-season games? No, with absolutely no chance of making the playoffs, you play the youngsters & evaluate your talent in real game situations. You never know what's on your bench. Does anyone remember a young Tom Brady coming off the bench & leading New England to a Super Bowl (not to mention the 2 after that)? Not a single person out there was thinking: "Hey, that kid on New England's bench-If he ever gets a chance to play, he'll be the next Joe Montana!" How badly can you hurt a team that has played like crap all year by playing a youngster? Besides, even if the guy doesn't play well, it can't be any worse than Brooks. Play A-Mac & see what he has. Let stupid (Brooks) sit on the bench & visit w/ his sugar daddy-Haslett!
	http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...gs/12-3006.jpg ______________________________ KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE! -G.I. Joe

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

12-08-2005, 01:35 PM	#4
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,371 Blog Entries: 34	I think that the issue is that there are 52 other players giving it their all and by benching Brooks, the implicit statement is that these 52 will be accountable for a loss, but AMac won't. That sets up a frustrated and unmotivated lockerroom (could it get any lower?). Hey, I'm not advocating starting Brooks (you'll never hear that from me), I'm just giving the other side of the argument.

12-08-2005, 03:24 PM	#6
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,371 Blog Entries: 34	I don't know about the "winning and losing don't matter" part. In order to evaluate the talent, the talent has to have a direction. If the offense is trying to do X on any particular play, and it takes 11 guys to achieve X, then each of those guys are going to be evaluated on the relative achievement of X in whole and in part. The play to achieve X has context (that is to say, a situation and parameters); onfield decisions and conditions can alter the play. Each player has to react to the conditions and instructions. X cannot be "stand still" or "throw an interception" or "miss a block" or "make an inappropriate arm tackle". X has to have a positive goal and the players roles in that play must be positive components for achieving X. By definition, the cumulative sum of all X's is winning. Therefore the game HAS to matter in order for the evaluation to be meaningful. This wouldn't be true of one argues for random football, where the plays may not make sense for the situation and the player next to you may or may not decide to do his job (or communicate that he's going to do something different.)

12-08-2005, 05:05 PM	#7
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Casting an eye to the future? Don't think so. We've all seen Tuiasosopo play, he's been in the league for five years. We know what he is...a good backup. If he wanted to truly evaluate the future, Walter would be starting. I think Norv is trying to create a spark. Why would he cast everything aside to "cast an eye to the future," a future that he won't be a part of?

12-08-2005, 07:39 PM	#9
CheramieIII Fan Since 1967 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Nomad Posts: 7,487 Blog Entries: 3	You know we need to bench everyone that has brought us to this juncture in the season. That means AB, some offensive lineman and defensive players too. If you never let them know that they have a chance to lose their job they will never excel. Haslett is stupid, plain and simple. He is sitting at home right now thinking that the Hurricane saved his arse, but it only gave him a one year break. Because he won't have that excuse next year. So Mr. Haslett better be looking for your next profession now while you have the time.
	Golf and sex are about the only things you can enjoy without being good at them. Jimmy Demaret

12-08-2005, 10:39 PM	#10
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	... that the "game doesn't matter" is not really true... if you take the next game as example, while the "game doesn't matter" to the Saints' standings since they are all but out of the playoff pciture, it does matter to the Falcons, doesn't it? They are going to come out and try to win the thing... so you'd put a youngster like Adrian in a real game situation, where the opposing team is actually trying to win the game and trying to take his head off; where he doesn't know what defense the other team is going to run; where he doesn't wear the red shirt... ..as far as the other 44 players who dress up for the game, really, what's the difference? If you are the defense, you know that your offense can't score points with the "1st string" QB playing and they turn the ball over like no one else in the entire league... what could possibly be the outcome of staring a rookie? The offense not scoring any points?? Couple more fumbles? Not much change there, uh? If you are special teams, well, you are going to either fumble the kick/punt, or shank the field goal, regardless of who's playing QB... If you are the offense, hey! you could have a scrambling QB who's going to keep drives alive... or maybe, just maybe Oh God!! a QB who throws the football IN FRONT of the receivers...
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill