The Fujitas - "The game that used and abused them"

SAINT_MICHAEL · 03-24-2011, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

What you or I get to do is totally irrelevant. It should not, and does not, have any bearing on the NFL players and owners because neither your nor I are as indispensable to our bosses as the NFL players are to the NFL.

When the players and their families try to play the sympathy card and make themselves out to be simple down home-folks who sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears to play a game they love without being properly compensated for, then it is relevant. They are blatantly and unashamedly shopping for public support with this letter, so if they are going to try and paint themselves as of the common fan, then the common fan has the right to make these comparisons.

I also disagree that the players are not indispensable. This is the same egotistical stance that the players are taking and thereby making the mistake of thinking they are bigger than the game. Let's face it, we don't follow the Saints because of Drew Brees, we follow them because they are the New Orleans Saints

The fact is that football is bigger than it ever has been. In college, TV ratings are good for even lesser ranked schools and through the roof for top ten programs. People are dying to watch football these days.

If the owners could somehow "wipe the slate clean" and cancel all the contracts for current players, then they cold hold open try-outs to all the Arena League, UFL, and CFL players. I would bet this "new" league would be viable and people would watch it if there was no NFL to fall back on. I’d even bet that if given the choice between sticking by the current NFL players and thereby not being able to play professional football for a living or being the first stars of a “new” NFL system that the current college players would join as well.

The college players joining might be a dream, but my point is the NFL and the teams they include are much more historically important to the fans than the individual players who have worn the uniforms. Players come and go, but the colors never change (unless you are the Tampa Bay Bucs).

lynwood · 03-24-2011, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL

When the players and their families try to play the sympathy card and make themselves out to be simple down home-folks who sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears to play a game they love without being properly compensated for, then it is relevant. They are blatantly and unashamedly shopping for public support with this letter, so if they are going to try and paint themselves as of the common fan, then the common fan has the right to make these comparisons.

I also disagree that the players are not indispensable. This is the same egotistical stance that the players are taking and thereby making the mistake of thinking they are bigger than the game. Let's face it, we don't follow the Saints because of Drew Brees, we follow them because they are the New Orleans Saints

The fact is that football is bigger than it ever has been. In college, TV ratings are good for even lesser ranked schools and through the roof for top ten programs. People are dying to watch football these days.

If the owners could somehow "wipe the slate clean" and cancel all the contracts for current players, then they cold hold open try-outs to all the Arena League, UFL, and CFL players. I would bet this "new" league would be viable and people would watch it if there was no NFL to fall back on. I’d even bet that if given the choice between sticking by the current NFL players and thereby not being able to play professional football for a living or being the first stars of a “new” NFL system that the current college players would join as well.

The college players joining might be a dream, but my point is the NFL and the teams they include are much more historically important to the fans than the individual players who have worn the uniforms. Players come and go, but the colors never change (unless you are the Tampa Bay Bucs).

Good post and to the point!

Memnoch_TP · 03-24-2011, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL

When the players and their families try to play the sympathy card and make themselves out to be simple down home-folks who sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears to play a game they love without being properly compensated for, then it is relevant. They are blatantly and unashamedly shopping for public support with this letter, so if they are going to try and paint themselves as of the common fan, then the common fan has the right to make these comparisons.

Fujita's wife's letter pissed me off too. And I didn't say you didn't have the right to make those comparisons, just that they are bad comparisons that don't apply. Which is true. You can say the earth is flat till you are blue in the face, too. It doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL

I also disagree that the players are not indispensable. This is the same egotistical stance that the players are taking and thereby making the mistake of thinking they are bigger than the game. Let's face it, we don't follow the Saints because of Drew Brees, we follow them because they are the New Orleans Saints.

Actually... When we signed Drew Brees season ticket sales spiked. Weeks later when we drafted Reggie season tickets were sold out. I can't tell you the last time this happened, but I know it has been a long damn time.

So, I'm sorry, but all I have to dispute that statement with are indisputable facts. Hard cold numbers that say before Drew Brees played a single down for the Saints he filled more seats than Aaron Brooks.

You can call it an egotistical stance, fine. Maybe it is egotistical, but that does NOT make it incorrect.

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL

...my point is the NFL and the teams they include are much more historically important to the fans than the individual players who have worn the uniforms. Players come and go, but the colors never change (unless you are the Tampa Bay Bucs).

True, but then again, it is the great players that make the unforgettable moments, but the bad players make the eras you want to forget about.

I mean, really, do you cherish the Aaron Brooks years and the Bobby Hebert years as much as the Drew Brees years or the Archie Manning years?

Do you think people from Pittsburgh get puffed up with Steeler Pride at the mention of Cordell Stewart? Nope. Now mention Terry Bradshaw. Yup, they puffed.

If the quality of the players made no difference then every team would sell out every seat in every game. I haven't seen a blackout in New Orleans since, hmm... Since Aaron Brooks was the QB.

saintfan · 03-24-2011, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

I mean, really, do you cherish the Aaron Brooks years and the Bobby Hebert years as much as the Drew Brees years or the Archie Manning years?

Yes. I certainly do. And the Billy Joe's and the Everette's too. And I don't remember any blackouts during Brooks' time with the team, but I could be wrong.

Look, it's a combination of players and geography for most people, and we latch on to players and loathe others, but we still live and die by what the 'team' does on Sunday. I'll be bleeding Black and Gold long after Drew retires. So will you. That's part of what makes it so popular - the fact that we'd latch on to replacement players too if they played long enough. That's just the nature of the beast. And I think that's the argument.

And I agree with Saint_Michael 100%. The comparisons are completely valid. Why shouldn't they be?

SAINT_MICHAEL · 03-25-2011, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

Fujita's wife's letter pissed me off too. And I didn't say you didn't have the right to make those comparisons, just that they are bad comparisons that don't apply. Which is true. You can say the earth is flat till you are blue in the face, too. It doesn't make it so.

Just like you saying it is a bad comparison doesn't make it so. It is apt. When they want to play the role of common man, then they have to play by the rules of the common man. If they don't want to, then say something like "Hey we are all wealthy individuals here who are dealing with money you normal fans can't understand. We'll get this worked out, but until then just sit tight"? But don't try to play it both ways. Why you seem to think that just because they make more money they get to create a new set of rules is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

Actually... When we signed Drew Brees season ticket sales spiked. Weeks later when we drafted Reggie season tickets were sold out. I can't tell you the last time this happened, but I know it has been a long damn time.

So, I'm sorry, but all I have to dispute that statement with are indisputable facts. Hard cold numbers that say before Drew Brees played a single down for the Saints he filled more seats than Aaron Brooks.

You can call it an egotistical stance, fine. Maybe it is egotistical, but that does NOT make it incorrect.

So, you think that because of the “indisputable fact” the Saints had a ticket spike when Drew and Reggie joined the team it proves your point about the players being indispensable? That’s a jump! Back in 1987 the players thought they were indispensable too. After watching replacement players fill their shoes for three games, they quickly realized that people would indeed watch without them and their big work stopping strike lasted all of 24 days. There is your indisputable fact. And let’s think about it…is football less or more popular than it was in 1987? You can say what you want to about MLB and NHL strikes hurting the sports, but they were not as strong as football is now. When Sundays and Monday nights come rolling around in October, people will watch football if it’s on no matter if it’s drew Tom Brady QBing or not.

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

True, but then again, it is the great players that make the unforgettable moments, but the bad players make the eras you want to forget about.

I mean, really, do you cherish the Aaron Brooks years and the Bobby Hebert years as much as the Drew Brees years or the Archie Manning years?

Do you think people from Pittsburgh get puffed up with Steeler Pride at the mention of Cordell Stewart? Nope. Now mention Terry Bradshaw. Yup, they puffed.

If the quality of the players made no difference then every team would sell out every seat in every game. I haven't seen a blackout in New Orleans since, hmm... Since Aaron Brooks was the QB.

The rough moments may not be as cherished as the good ones, but they were and are still watched and that is the point. You can’t enjoy the good times without having the bad times to compare them to.

03-24-2011, 11:36 AM	#1
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446	Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP What you or I get to do is totally irrelevant. It should not, and does not, have any bearing on the NFL players and owners because neither your nor I are as indispensable to our bosses as the NFL players are to the NFL. When the players and their families try to play the sympathy card and make themselves out to be simple down home-folks who sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears to play a game they love without being properly compensated for, then it is relevant. They are blatantly and unashamedly shopping for public support with this letter, so if they are going to try and paint themselves as of the common fan, then the common fan has the right to make these comparisons. I also disagree that the players are not indispensable. This is the same egotistical stance that the players are taking and thereby making the mistake of thinking they are bigger than the game. Let's face it, we don't follow the Saints because of Drew Brees, we follow them because they are the New Orleans Saints The fact is that football is bigger than it ever has been. In college, TV ratings are good for even lesser ranked schools and through the roof for top ten programs. People are dying to watch football these days. If the owners could somehow "wipe the slate clean" and cancel all the contracts for current players, then they cold hold open try-outs to all the Arena League, UFL, and CFL players. I would bet this "new" league would be viable and people would watch it if there was no NFL to fall back on. I’d even bet that if given the choice between sticking by the current NFL players and thereby not being able to play professional football for a living or being the first stars of a “new” NFL system that the current college players would join as well. The college players joining might be a dream, but my point is the NFL and the teams they include are much more historically important to the fans than the individual players who have worn the uniforms. Players come and go, but the colors never change (unless you are the Tampa Bay Bucs).
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446

03-24-2011, 12:33 PM	#2
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL When the players and their families try to play the sympathy card and make themselves out to be simple down home-folks who sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears to play a game they love without being properly compensated for, then it is relevant. They are blatantly and unashamedly shopping for public support with this letter, so if they are going to try and paint themselves as of the common fan, then the common fan has the right to make these comparisons. I also disagree that the players are not indispensable. This is the same egotistical stance that the players are taking and thereby making the mistake of thinking they are bigger than the game. Let's face it, we don't follow the Saints because of Drew Brees, we follow them because they are the New Orleans Saints The fact is that football is bigger than it ever has been. In college, TV ratings are good for even lesser ranked schools and through the roof for top ten programs. People are dying to watch football these days. If the owners could somehow "wipe the slate clean" and cancel all the contracts for current players, then they cold hold open try-outs to all the Arena League, UFL, and CFL players. I would bet this "new" league would be viable and people would watch it if there was no NFL to fall back on. I’d even bet that if given the choice between sticking by the current NFL players and thereby not being able to play professional football for a living or being the first stars of a “new” NFL system that the current college players would join as well. The college players joining might be a dream, but my point is the NFL and the teams they include are much more historically important to the fans than the individual players who have worn the uniforms. Players come and go, but the colors never change (unless you are the Tampa Bay Bucs). Good post and to the point!

03-24-2011, 08:03 PM	#3
Memnoch_TP Logic Troll Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Southern Louisiana Posts: 565	Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL When the players and their families try to play the sympathy card and make themselves out to be simple down home-folks who sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears to play a game they love without being properly compensated for, then it is relevant. They are blatantly and unashamedly shopping for public support with this letter, so if they are going to try and paint themselves as of the common fan, then the common fan has the right to make these comparisons. Fujita's wife's letter pissed me off too. And I didn't say you didn't have the right to make those comparisons, just that they are bad comparisons that don't apply. Which is true. You can say the earth is flat till you are blue in the face, too. It doesn't make it so. Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL I also disagree that the players are not indispensable. This is the same egotistical stance that the players are taking and thereby making the mistake of thinking they are bigger than the game. Let's face it, we don't follow the Saints because of Drew Brees, we follow them because they are the New Orleans Saints. Actually... When we signed Drew Brees season ticket sales spiked. Weeks later when we drafted Reggie season tickets were sold out. I can't tell you the last time this happened, but I know it has been a long damn time. So, I'm sorry, but all I have to dispute that statement with are indisputable facts. Hard cold numbers that say before Drew Brees played a single down for the Saints he filled more seats than Aaron Brooks. You can call it an egotistical stance, fine. Maybe it is egotistical, but that does NOT make it incorrect. Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL ...my point is the NFL and the teams they include are much more historically important to the fans than the individual players who have worn the uniforms. Players come and go, but the colors never change (unless you are the Tampa Bay Bucs). True, but then again, it is the great players that make the unforgettable moments, but the bad players make the eras you want to forget about. I mean, really, do you cherish the Aaron Brooks years and the Bobby Hebert years as much as the Drew Brees years or the Archie Manning years? Do you think people from Pittsburgh get puffed up with Steeler Pride at the mention of Cordell Stewart? Nope. Now mention Terry Bradshaw. Yup, they puffed. If the quality of the players made no difference then every team would sell out every seat in every game. I haven't seen a blackout in New Orleans since, hmm... Since Aaron Brooks was the QB.
	"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams.

03-24-2011, 08:50 PM	#4
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP I mean, really, do you cherish the Aaron Brooks years and the Bobby Hebert years as much as the Drew Brees years or the Archie Manning years? Yes. I certainly do. And the Billy Joe's and the Everette's too. And I don't remember any blackouts during Brooks' time with the team, but I could be wrong. Look, it's a combination of players and geography for most people, and we latch on to players and loathe others, but we still live and die by what the 'team' does on Sunday. I'll be bleeding Black and Gold long after Drew retires. So will you. That's part of what makes it so popular - the fact that we'd latch on to replacement players too if they played long enough. That's just the nature of the beast. And I think that's the argument. And I agree with Saint_Michael 100%. The comparisons are completely valid. Why shouldn't they be?
	C'mon Man...

03-25-2011, 12:54 PM	#5
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446	Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP Fujita's wife's letter pissed me off too. And I didn't say you didn't have the right to make those comparisons, just that they are bad comparisons that don't apply. Which is true. You can say the earth is flat till you are blue in the face, too. It doesn't make it so. Just like you saying it is a bad comparison doesn't make it so. It is apt. When they want to play the role of common man, then they have to play by the rules of the common man. If they don't want to, then say something like "Hey we are all wealthy individuals here who are dealing with money you normal fans can't understand. We'll get this worked out, but until then just sit tight"? But don't try to play it both ways. Why you seem to think that just because they make more money they get to create a new set of rules is beyond me. Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP Actually... When we signed Drew Brees season ticket sales spiked. Weeks later when we drafted Reggie season tickets were sold out. I can't tell you the last time this happened, but I know it has been a long damn time. So, I'm sorry, but all I have to dispute that statement with are indisputable facts. Hard cold numbers that say before Drew Brees played a single down for the Saints he filled more seats than Aaron Brooks. You can call it an egotistical stance, fine. Maybe it is egotistical, but that does NOT make it incorrect. So, you think that because of the “indisputable fact” the Saints had a ticket spike when Drew and Reggie joined the team it proves your point about the players being indispensable? That’s a jump! Back in 1987 the players thought they were indispensable too. After watching replacement players fill their shoes for three games, they quickly realized that people would indeed watch without them and their big work stopping strike lasted all of 24 days. There is your indisputable fact. And let’s think about it…is football less or more popular than it was in 1987? You can say what you want to about MLB and NHL strikes hurting the sports, but they were not as strong as football is now. When Sundays and Monday nights come rolling around in October, people will watch football if it’s on no matter if it’s drew Tom Brady QBing or not. Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP True, but then again, it is the great players that make the unforgettable moments, but the bad players make the eras you want to forget about. I mean, really, do you cherish the Aaron Brooks years and the Bobby Hebert years as much as the Drew Brees years or the Archie Manning years? Do you think people from Pittsburgh get puffed up with Steeler Pride at the mention of Cordell Stewart? Nope. Now mention Terry Bradshaw. Yup, they puffed. If the quality of the players made no difference then every team would sell out every seat in every game. I haven't seen a blackout in New Orleans since, hmm... Since Aaron Brooks was the QB. The rough moments may not be as cherished as the good ones, but they were and are still watched and that is the point. You can’t enjoy the good times without having the bad times to compare them to.
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446