2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints

SaintPauly · 12-18-2006, 09:01 PM

I have said this in a few other posts, and it seems as though everyone is ignoring my statement. So I'll say it one more time, and NOT to tick anyone off, just an analysis. So, please, I am unarmed......

Hurricane Katrina withstanding, we HAVE been here before. Brand new coach and staff; 50% of our roster brand new; playoff season; heismann running back; hope for the future. You might think I am referring to the 06 season, but I am not. I am referring to 2000.

Ditka screws us with the Williams draft trade in 99, and then proceeds to go 3-13 on the season. We get a new coach in Jim Haslett, and he inspires the team to great things, by winning the south, going to the play offs, and beating the "all powerful" Rams, and then getting destroyed by the Vikings, the next week in Minnesota. BUT, we do win our first ever play off game, something Mora could never do.

Every Saints fan on the planet went nuts, and we were all in the belief, that this was a sign of great things to come. After that magical season, we ended up missing the play offs, for five straight years. Amazing talent on offense, and defense. Never reaching their full potential, and always falling just short of breaking out.

Now, up to date; coming off of a 3-13 season; new coach and staff; 50% of our roster brand new; play offs coming up; heismann running back; new hope for bright future. I'm not one for deja vu, but come on!

I will not get over excited this time. Call me whatever you want, and tell me that I'm not a "real" fan. By some of the logic in here, maybe I'm not. I am, however, a "real-listic" fan. Which means, as far as the season goes, I am happy about it, not exstatic, but happy. Many teams go to the play offs, but only one wins the Super Bowl. That's what the team wants, so that's what I want. We've been to the play offs, more than once, so this isn't new for us. Anything less than a championship, is just..... well, less.

Please don't flame me.... I love this room, and love the discussions. This is just, what I think. I apologize if this observation makes you angry. I just want to hear what everyone thinks about it.

frankeefrank · 12-19-2006, 12:39 AM

With all due respect, you're wrong and here's why...

The Saints won in 2000 with a 2nd string QB, AB at QB.
And a second string RB, remember...Terry Allen at RB along with Chad Morton
Willie Jackson was our second leading receiver with 37 catches
The offense was no where as talented.
Even the defense gave up 1 more yard per play in 2000 that the 2006 squad has this year.
The 2000 team started 1-3
This team 3-1

In 2000, The Saints needed a miraculous comeback to defeat the defending SB champion Rams (in STL) in their first meeting of the season.

They also beat SF in SF thanks in part to a blown out of bounds TD run call (in favor of NO) on 4th down.

The 200 team went 3-3 down the stretch.
This year's team will have to lose their last 2 to duplicate that.
They won't
The 2000 coach was an idiot. Setting up a trend of late season collapses.
A so-called defensive genius who's team gave up 367 points that season.
The competition was also different.
In 2000,
ATL was 6-10, CAR 7-9 and ATL 4-12. The Rams were only 10-6
Bears 5-7, Chargers 1-15, Cardinals 3-13
All teams NO beat that year
A combined "not very good" 36-72

Sure this year's team has beaten CLE 4-10 and TB 3-11
But every other win has come against a team that is STILL alive for a play-off berth.
GB, ATL, PHI, SF, DAL, NYG and CAR (calling my shot)

The Saints in 2000 were the right team at the right time...
AFTER ALL...
"HAKIM DROPPED THE BALL"

This team the 2006 Saints will be the No. 2 seed in the NFC.
They have been the second best team in the NFC all year.

saintsrule · 12-19-2006, 03:47 AM

i am happy with this team and I am happy with that 2000 team. I do not dislike Haslett or Brooks. They did well. No team goes to the playoffs every year. They were always in the playoff hunt(not last year or course), and that is all you can ask for. I have no hopes for nest year, because of this year, I just cheer for them.

SaintPauly · 12-19-2006, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by frankeefrank

With all due respect, you're wrong and here's why...

The Saints won in 2000 with a 2nd string QB, AB at QB.
And a second string RB, remember...Terry Allen at RB along with Chad Morton
Willie Jackson was our second leading receiver with 37 catches
The offense was no where as talented.
Even the defense gave up 1 more yard per play in 2000 that the 2006 squad has this year.
The 2000 team started 1-3
This team 3-1

In 2000, The Saints needed a miraculous comeback to defeat the defending SB champion Rams (in STL) in their first meeting of the season.

They also beat SF in SF thanks in part to a blown out of bounds TD run call (in favor of NO) on 4th down.

The 200 team went 3-3 down the stretch.
This year's team will have to lose their last 2 to duplicate that.
They won't
The 2000 coach was an idiot. Setting up a trend of late season collapses.
A so-called defensive genius who's team gave up 367 points that season.
The competition was also different.
In 2000,
ATL was 6-10, CAR 7-9 and ATL 4-12. The Rams were only 10-6
Bears 5-7, Chargers 1-15, Cardinals 3-13
All teams NO beat that year
A combined "not very good" 36-72

Sure this year's team has beaten CLE 4-10 and TB 3-11
But every other win has come against a team that is STILL alive for a play-off berth.
GB, ATL, PHI, SF, DAL, NYG and CAR (calling my shot)

The Saints in 2000 were the right team at the right time...
AFTER ALL...
"HAKIM DROPPED THE BALL"

This team the 2006 Saints will be the No. 2 seed in the NFC.
They have been the second best team in the NFC all year.

Well, we just let a last place team, in an overall weak division come into our house and outplay us. I don't buy into the let down game scenario, we just sucked. If we can do it against the Redskins, then it could happen again when there's alot more at stake. This Sunday's game against the Giants is going to tell us alot about our coaching staff, as well as our team's overall character. We'll see.

All of my similarities are based on team structure, and what the season before it looked like, not the exact statistics. We were a 3-13 team in 99, and we had a new coach, with almost all new players, and had a great run, in 2000. Only to be let down the next year. I'm not sure if you were around during the Mora years, but that was equally frustrating, getting so close every year, and then tanking in the play offs. We had an AWESOME defense back then, and a mediocre offense. If it hadn't been for Anderson's big foot, we would have lost alot of games. If defense wins championships, then I don't know what happened there.

My point is, that we have been to the play offs before, and now it's time to expect more. I don't think of that as a bad thing. We can all say whatever we want, but when we won that first play off game, every Saints fan everywhere was on cloud nine, and high on expectations. No matter what he did after that, Haslett was the man that day, in my eyes. He did something that no other coach before him had done, or after him......so far.

SapperSaint · 12-19-2006, 10:33 AM

Trust me, if any Saint fan is not thinking about the 2000 season, even in the farthest point in the back of their mind they are kidding themselves. I think the main difference is we have Brees. He is the torch bearer and he IS the Leader of this team, THIS year. I don't expect them to do anything, but I do Hope, Pray, and have the Faith that they will be victorious.

SaintPauly · 12-19-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by SapperSaint

Trust me, if any Saint fan is not thinking about the 2000 season, even in the farthest point in the back of their mind they are kidding themselves. I think the main difference is we have Brees. He is the torch bearer and he IS the Leader of this team, THIS year. I don't expect them to do anything, but I do Hope, Pray, and have the Faith that they will be victorious.

I would agree with this asessment. Brees is a major upgrade from Brooks. He has a will to win, that Brooks never seemed to have.

Another funny thing about the 2000 team, that everyone seems to forget, is that Jeff Blake was our starter for most of that year, not Brooks. If Blake doesn't get hurt in the Raider game, who knows what happens. Record wise, Blake had the better numbers.

GoldRush26 · 12-19-2006, 06:25 PM

Well, we just let a last place team, in an overall weak division come into our house and outplay us. I don't buy into the let down game scenario, we just sucked. If we can do it against the Redskins, then it could happen again when there's alot more at stake. This Sunday's game against the Giants is going to tell us alot about our coaching staff, as well as our team's overall character. We'll see.

All of my similarities are based on team structure, and what the season before it looked like, not the exact statistics. We were a 3-13 team in 99, and we had a new coach, with almost all new players, and had a great run, in 2000. Only to be let down the next year. I'm not sure if you were around during the Mora years, but that was equally frustrating, getting so close every year, and then tanking in the play offs. We had an AWESOME defense back then, and a mediocre offense. If it hadn't been for Anderson's big foot, we would have lost alot of games. If defense wins championships, then I don't know what happened there.

My point is, that we have been to the play offs before, and now it's time to expect more. I don't think of that as a bad thing. We can all say whatever we want, but when we won that first play off game, every Saints fan everywhere was on cloud nine, and high on expectations. No matter what he did after that, Haslett was the man that day, in my eyes. He did something that no other coach before him had done, or after him......so far.

Honestly I see very few similarities between the 2000 team and the 06 team. Like someone said earlier in the post, this year's team has been far more consistent. We've been winning the entire year. We've maintained what we started. Most notably we have an MVP canidate at the most important position in football, QB. That is a huge difference in and of itself. We have highly talented players at all of our skill positions, and not a bunch of also-rans Joe Horn was the only true offensive star on that '00 team. Right now we have Colston, Bush, Henderson. Deuce, a great blocking FB in Karney...I'm sorry...offensively speaking this '06 team is FAR more potent.

We lost to the Redskins...true enough. It was really our first "letdown" of the season. Carolina was a much better team when they beat us. Pittsburgh is suffering from being in a powerful division, and Cincy is playoff-worthy.

Back to the Redskins...if you look at the current state of the NFL you would see that the same things are happening all over the league. The Bears just had 31 put up on them at home and were put in a position to win that game due to a blown call. The Colts lost to Tennessee. The Jags lost to Houston. Cincy lost to TB. I could go on. Good teams lose to bad teams every week. This week it happened to us. There's no evidence that this would happen again. As Chris Berman says, that's why they play the games.

Unfortunately we have to lose games from time to time. Yeah we could lose our first game of the playoffs, or we could win all of our playoffs games and win the Super Bowl.

I don't think the Washington game is an indication of one thing or another. It was just one game. We didn't repeat any mistakes that we made in previous games. They just seemed to be playing with no emotion...like they thought they could win just by showing up. And there was every reason to think this. I hate to say we came out flat but that's what happened.

frankeefrank · 12-19-2006, 09:10 PM

The NFC East is an "overall weak" division????
Your Kidding me?
Three teams are still alive for play-off berths.
Combined the NFC east is tied with the North for the most wins against NFC teams (22) than any other division... And that's only b/c the Bears have 10 wins.
The NFC East combined has 29 wins which is more than any other division in the NFC.
Please...
The only thing that is "overall weak" is your opinion.

frankeefrank · 12-19-2006, 09:16 PM

sorry for the aggresion,
but I am just sick of the losing mentality We have...
This team is different.
And BTW
Who cares about next year?

Countless times this season I have said to myself during games, "here we go, this is when the Saints I know... roll over, lose their composure, crumble and blow it."
Each time they have proved me wrong.
Sunday was a great example,
During that last drive, I BELIEVED we were going to score. Didn't think we would turn it over on downs or throw an INT.
I never felt that way with Haslett.
Sorry I guess I believe...

SaintPauly · 12-19-2006, 11:49 PM

Ok Frank, we'll agree to disagree. This topic was never meant to start static, just to compare the two teams, and the similarities, of the situation. Maybe that's the way I should have put it, the situations are very similar, not the teams themselves.

I will not lie, I thought Haslett was a breath of fresh air, after the horrible years with Ditka at the helm. He did some amazing things with the team in the first few seasons. Of course the fresh air turned to the smell of the cat food plant, outside Moss Pointe, the last two seasons he was there. So with that analogy, everytime something bad happens, I figuretively roll up the window, and hold my breath till I get to Pascagoula. Sunday's game was one of those times, along with losses to Pitt, Baltimore, and Cincy. The Carolina game did not shock me as much, because they always play us tough.

I apologize to everyone, that I am not "there" yet, on believing completely in this team. Maybe it's the scars of watching in horror, as so many Saints teams of the past crashed and burned, just when I thought things were looking up. We as Saints fans, have had to come up with our own definitions of success, over the years. What we consider triumphs, the rest of the football world looks at, as futility. We look forward to making the play offs, while other organizations, like the Patriots, Broncos, and Bears, look forward to winning the Superbowl.

I would just really like a season with no doubts, but it is hard for me, because of past experiences, and the fact that there's no such thing as a season without problems.

12-18-2006, 09:01 PM	#1
SaintPauly Senior Citizen Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 3,180 Blog Entries: 1	2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints I have said this in a few other posts, and it seems as though everyone is ignoring my statement. So I'll say it one more time, and NOT to tick anyone off, just an analysis. So, please, I am unarmed...... Hurricane Katrina withstanding, we HAVE been here before. Brand new coach and staff; 50% of our roster brand new; playoff season; heismann running back; hope for the future. You might think I am referring to the 06 season, but I am not. I am referring to 2000. Ditka screws us with the Williams draft trade in 99, and then proceeds to go 3-13 on the season. We get a new coach in Jim Haslett, and he inspires the team to great things, by winning the south, going to the play offs, and beating the "all powerful" Rams, and then getting destroyed by the Vikings, the next week in Minnesota. BUT, we do win our first ever play off game, something Mora could never do. Every Saints fan on the planet went nuts, and we were all in the belief, that this was a sign of great things to come. After that magical season, we ended up missing the play offs, for five straight years. Amazing talent on offense, and defense. Never reaching their full potential, and always falling just short of breaking out. Now, up to date; coming off of a 3-13 season; new coach and staff; 50% of our roster brand new; play offs coming up; heismann running back; new hope for bright future. I'm not one for deja vu, but come on! I will not get over excited this time. Call me whatever you want, and tell me that I'm not a "real" fan. By some of the logic in here, maybe I'm not. I am, however, a "real-listic" fan. Which means, as far as the season goes, I am happy about it, not exstatic, but happy. Many teams go to the play offs, but only one wins the Super Bowl. That's what the team wants, so that's what I want. We've been to the play offs, more than once, so this isn't new for us. Anything less than a championship, is just..... well, less. Please don't flame me.... I love this room, and love the discussions. This is just, what I think. I apologize if this observation makes you angry. I just want to hear what everyone thinks about it.

12-19-2006, 12:39 AM	#2
frankeefrank 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 775	RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints With all due respect, you're wrong and here's why... The Saints won in 2000 with a 2nd string QB, AB at QB. And a second string RB, remember...Terry Allen at RB along with Chad Morton Willie Jackson was our second leading receiver with 37 catches The offense was no where as talented. Even the defense gave up 1 more yard per play in 2000 that the 2006 squad has this year. The 2000 team started 1-3 This team 3-1 In 2000, The Saints needed a miraculous comeback to defeat the defending SB champion Rams (in STL) in their first meeting of the season. They also beat SF in SF thanks in part to a blown out of bounds TD run call (in favor of NO) on 4th down. The 200 team went 3-3 down the stretch. This year's team will have to lose their last 2 to duplicate that. They won't The 2000 coach was an idiot. Setting up a trend of late season collapses. A so-called defensive genius who's team gave up 367 points that season. The competition was also different. In 2000, ATL was 6-10, CAR 7-9 and ATL 4-12. The Rams were only 10-6 Bears 5-7, Chargers 1-15, Cardinals 3-13 All teams NO beat that year A combined "not very good" 36-72 Sure this year's team has beaten CLE 4-10 and TB 3-11 But every other win has come against a team that is STILL alive for a play-off berth. GB, ATL, PHI, SF, DAL, NYG and CAR (calling my shot) The Saints in 2000 were the right team at the right time... AFTER ALL... "HAKIM DROPPED THE BALL" This team the 2006 Saints will be the No. 2 seed in the NFC. They have been the second best team in the NFC all year.
frankeefrank 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 775

12-19-2006, 03:47 AM	#3
saintsrule 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 657	i am happy with this team and I am happy with that 2000 team. I do not dislike Haslett or Brooks. They did well. No team goes to the playoffs every year. They were always in the playoff hunt(not last year or course), and that is all you can ask for. I have no hopes for nest year, because of this year, I just cheer for them.
saintsrule 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 657

12-19-2006, 06:49 AM	#4
SaintPauly Senior Citizen Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 3,180 Blog Entries: 1	Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints Originally Posted by frankeefrank With all due respect, you're wrong and here's why... The Saints won in 2000 with a 2nd string QB, AB at QB. And a second string RB, remember...Terry Allen at RB along with Chad Morton Willie Jackson was our second leading receiver with 37 catches The offense was no where as talented. Even the defense gave up 1 more yard per play in 2000 that the 2006 squad has this year. The 2000 team started 1-3 This team 3-1 In 2000, The Saints needed a miraculous comeback to defeat the defending SB champion Rams (in STL) in their first meeting of the season. They also beat SF in SF thanks in part to a blown out of bounds TD run call (in favor of NO) on 4th down. The 200 team went 3-3 down the stretch. This year's team will have to lose their last 2 to duplicate that. They won't The 2000 coach was an idiot. Setting up a trend of late season collapses. A so-called defensive genius who's team gave up 367 points that season. The competition was also different. In 2000, ATL was 6-10, CAR 7-9 and ATL 4-12. The Rams were only 10-6 Bears 5-7, Chargers 1-15, Cardinals 3-13 All teams NO beat that year A combined "not very good" 36-72 Sure this year's team has beaten CLE 4-10 and TB 3-11 But every other win has come against a team that is STILL alive for a play-off berth. GB, ATL, PHI, SF, DAL, NYG and CAR (calling my shot) The Saints in 2000 were the right team at the right time... AFTER ALL... "HAKIM DROPPED THE BALL" This team the 2006 Saints will be the No. 2 seed in the NFC. They have been the second best team in the NFC all year. Well, we just let a last place team, in an overall weak division come into our house and outplay us. I don't buy into the let down game scenario, we just sucked. If we can do it against the Redskins, then it could happen again when there's alot more at stake. This Sunday's game against the Giants is going to tell us alot about our coaching staff, as well as our team's overall character. We'll see. All of my similarities are based on team structure, and what the season before it looked like, not the exact statistics. We were a 3-13 team in 99, and we had a new coach, with almost all new players, and had a great run, in 2000. Only to be let down the next year. I'm not sure if you were around during the Mora years, but that was equally frustrating, getting so close every year, and then tanking in the play offs. We had an AWESOME defense back then, and a mediocre offense. If it hadn't been for Anderson's big foot, we would have lost alot of games. If defense wins championships, then I don't know what happened there. My point is, that we have been to the play offs before, and now it's time to expect more. I don't think of that as a bad thing. We can all say whatever we want, but when we won that first play off game, every Saints fan everywhere was on cloud nine, and high on expectations. No matter what he did after that, Haslett was the man that day, in my eyes. He did something that no other coach before him had done, or after him......so far.

12-19-2006, 10:33 AM	#5
SapperSaint Pink Nightmare Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Mississippi Posts: 3,028 Blog Entries: 7	RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints Trust me, if any Saint fan is not thinking about the 2000 season, even in the farthest point in the back of their mind they are kidding themselves. I think the main difference is we have Brees. He is the torch bearer and he IS the Leader of this team, THIS year. I don't expect them to do anything, but I do Hope, Pray, and have the Faith that they will be victorious.

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

12-19-2006, 05:34 PM	#6
SaintPauly Senior Citizen Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 3,180 Blog Entries: 1	Re: RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints Originally Posted by SapperSaint Trust me, if any Saint fan is not thinking about the 2000 season, even in the farthest point in the back of their mind they are kidding themselves. I think the main difference is we have Brees. He is the torch bearer and he IS the Leader of this team, THIS year. I don't expect them to do anything, but I do Hope, Pray, and have the Faith that they will be victorious. I would agree with this asessment. Brees is a major upgrade from Brooks. He has a will to win, that Brooks never seemed to have. Another funny thing about the 2000 team, that everyone seems to forget, is that Jeff Blake was our starter for most of that year, not Brooks. If Blake doesn't get hurt in the Raider game, who knows what happens. Record wise, Blake had the better numbers.

12-19-2006, 06:25 PM	#7
GoldRush26 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 594	Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints Well, we just let a last place team, in an overall weak division come into our house and outplay us. I don't buy into the let down game scenario, we just sucked. If we can do it against the Redskins, then it could happen again when there's alot more at stake. This Sunday's game against the Giants is going to tell us alot about our coaching staff, as well as our team's overall character. We'll see. All of my similarities are based on team structure, and what the season before it looked like, not the exact statistics. We were a 3-13 team in 99, and we had a new coach, with almost all new players, and had a great run, in 2000. Only to be let down the next year. I'm not sure if you were around during the Mora years, but that was equally frustrating, getting so close every year, and then tanking in the play offs. We had an AWESOME defense back then, and a mediocre offense. If it hadn't been for Anderson's big foot, we would have lost alot of games. If defense wins championships, then I don't know what happened there. My point is, that we have been to the play offs before, and now it's time to expect more. I don't think of that as a bad thing. We can all say whatever we want, but when we won that first play off game, every Saints fan everywhere was on cloud nine, and high on expectations. No matter what he did after that, Haslett was the man that day, in my eyes. He did something that no other coach before him had done, or after him......so far. Honestly I see very few similarities between the 2000 team and the 06 team. Like someone said earlier in the post, this year's team has been far more consistent. We've been winning the entire year. We've maintained what we started. Most notably we have an MVP canidate at the most important position in football, QB. That is a huge difference in and of itself. We have highly talented players at all of our skill positions, and not a bunch of also-rans Joe Horn was the only true offensive star on that '00 team. Right now we have Colston, Bush, Henderson. Deuce, a great blocking FB in Karney...I'm sorry...offensively speaking this '06 team is FAR more potent. We lost to the Redskins...true enough. It was really our first "letdown" of the season. Carolina was a much better team when they beat us. Pittsburgh is suffering from being in a powerful division, and Cincy is playoff-worthy. Back to the Redskins...if you look at the current state of the NFL you would see that the same things are happening all over the league. The Bears just had 31 put up on them at home and were put in a position to win that game due to a blown call. The Colts lost to Tennessee. The Jags lost to Houston. Cincy lost to TB. I could go on. Good teams lose to bad teams every week. This week it happened to us. There's no evidence that this would happen again. As Chris Berman says, that's why they play the games. Unfortunately we have to lose games from time to time. Yeah we could lose our first game of the playoffs, or we could win all of our playoffs games and win the Super Bowl. I don't think the Washington game is an indication of one thing or another. It was just one game. We didn't repeat any mistakes that we made in previous games. They just seemed to be playing with no emotion...like they thought they could win just by showing up. And there was every reason to think this. I hate to say we came out flat but that's what happened.
GoldRush26 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 594

12-19-2006, 09:10 PM	#8
frankeefrank 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 775	RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints The NFC East is an "overall weak" division???? Your Kidding me? Three teams are still alive for play-off berths. Combined the NFC east is tied with the North for the most wins against NFC teams (22) than any other division... And that's only b/c the Bears have 10 wins. The NFC East combined has 29 wins which is more than any other division in the NFC. Please... The only thing that is "overall weak" is your opinion.
frankeefrank 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 775

12-19-2006, 09:16 PM	#9
frankeefrank 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 775	RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints sorry for the aggresion, but I am just sick of the losing mentality We have... This team is different. And BTW Who cares about next year? Countless times this season I have said to myself during games, "here we go, this is when the Saints I know... roll over, lose their composure, crumble and blow it." Each time they have proved me wrong. Sunday was a great example, During that last drive, I BELIEVED we were going to score. Didn't think we would turn it over on downs or throw an INT. I never felt that way with Haslett. Sorry I guess I believe...
frankeefrank 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 775

12-19-2006, 11:49 PM	#10
SaintPauly Senior Citizen Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 3,180 Blog Entries: 1	RE: Re: RE: 2000 Saints/ 2006 Saints Ok Frank, we'll agree to disagree. This topic was never meant to start static, just to compare the two teams, and the similarities, of the situation. Maybe that's the way I should have put it, the situations are very similar, not the teams themselves. I will not lie, I thought Haslett was a breath of fresh air, after the horrible years with Ditka at the helm. He did some amazing things with the team in the first few seasons. Of course the fresh air turned to the smell of the cat food plant, outside Moss Pointe, the last two seasons he was there. So with that analogy, everytime something bad happens, I figuretively roll up the window, and hold my breath till I get to Pascagoula. Sunday's game was one of those times, along with losses to Pitt, Baltimore, and Cincy. The Carolina game did not shock me as much, because they always play us tough. I apologize to everyone, that I am not "there" yet, on believing completely in this team. Maybe it's the scars of watching in horror, as so many Saints teams of the past crashed and burned, just when I thought things were looking up. We as Saints fans, have had to come up with our own definitions of success, over the years. What we consider triumphs, the rest of the football world looks at, as futility. We look forward to making the play offs, while other organizations, like the Patriots, Broncos, and Bears, look forward to winning the Superbowl. I would just really like a season with no doubts, but it is hard for me, because of past experiences, and the fact that there's no such thing as a season without problems.
	What's popular is not always right, and what's right is not always popular.....