lose saints lose

ami2kind4words · 12-22-2003, 02:04 PM

I am a saints fan but I will love for the saints too lose against Dallas(anything to be able to pick up D. J. Williams in 2004 draft)

WhoDat · 12-22-2003, 02:52 PM

OOHH... this is gonna be a good debate here I can already feel it.

A while back the Saints were... I dunno, 1-5 or something like that and I suggested that the best thing for them would be to lose out. Hear me out.... my reasoning was:

1. A 5-11 type season would probably send Haslett packing whereas being close (i.e. 8-8), would allow him to blame injuries, officiating, etc. etc. and he would get another year.

2. It doesn\'t matter if this team is 8-8, 9-7, or 15-1, if they don\'t make the playoffs, the season is a failure to me. Thus, since we all know we\'ve got the talent. A bad year might mean bigger changes and a higher draft pick, allowing us to fill those all important remaining holes (i.e. MLB, CB, etc. etc. etc.), and have what we need to go al the way next year.

3. A bad year would have allowed the Saints to test unproven talent. We probably would have seen Cie Grant. Bouman may have hada chance to prove to us all one way or the other whether or not AB really is the answer. We\'d know exactly what we\'ve got.

Now, I hate seeing the team lose. And I said way back then that I couldn\'t bring myself to root against them. However, the logical part of me thought then that this team wouldn\'t make the playoffs, so 5-11 with a little spark at the end of the season would be better than 8-8 and more of the same next season. Many people on this board argued with me tooth and nail. That\'s fine.

All I want to ask now is, if we were 5-11 right now, would we not be in better shape to make the changes that all of us think need to be made? (New coaches, new GM, some real talent on D, etc.)?

Let the games begin.

JKool · 12-22-2003, 04:37 PM

Ok, I\'ll bite, and I remember you saying this earlier.

First, let me say this. There are two ways to understand the idea that we would be better off losing. The first way is to suggest the team would simply be better off if it lost, regardless of its efforts. The second way is to suggest the team should simply start playing backups to get them practice and to not really try to win, but merely try to get some learning experience. My argument below only applies if you are intending the second reading, not the first.

While, having missed the playoffs (and I haven\'t made up my mind about this yet), one might simply agree the team would have been better off having lost more games, here are my initial thoughts (and this is not a fully develped argument yet - but this is a really long sentence) as to why the team is better off as is:

1- There is a certain amount of psychological damage done to players when the coach gives up and benches them for \"less able\" players. I don\'t think any of our starters should have to feel like it has already been decided that they cannot win.
2- There are the fans to consider too. While some of us here would have been happy to see Cie and Bouman get some time, most fans don\'t look that closely. They want to see a team that gives it their all. (I\'m not totally sold on this point yet, but so far I like it).
3- Better record equals more respect. I\'m sick of our boys being disrespected; if we finish second in our division, even if we don\'t make the playoffs, at least we\'re not a laughing stock.
4- I like winning. I don\'t like to watch teams lose, or try to lose.

Ok, that said, I agree with WhoDat on point number 1. Hopefully this gets the ball rolling in a somewhat constructive manner.

Danno · 12-22-2003, 05:05 PM

J, good point, but I disagree completely...
Now is the perfect oppurtunity to start 2004 camp early.
Play your future right now...
OFFENSE-
Donte Stallworth- for a banged up Horn, lets see him at the #1 spot
Talman Gardner- for Pathon
Derrick Lewis-3rd WR
Boo- keep starting, although we already know he can bing it.
Zach Hilton- extended PT
Johnathan Stinchcomb anywhere along the O-line. Lets show this boy what it takes in this league.
Montrae Holland-keep him in for the whole game.

DEFENSE
Melvin Williams-increase PT
Kendrick Allen-platoon with Smith
James Allen-start for Rogers
Cie Grant-Start for Ruff (if he\'s healthy)
Keyou Craver-Start opposite Thomas or Ambrose
Fakhir Brown-extended PT
Devron Harper-At either Safety spot.

Craver/Gardner to return all kicks/punts.

If we do this for a meaningful Cowboy game it\'ll be more valuable development wise and evaluation wise than any pre-season game.

[Edited on 22/12/2003 by Danno]

JKool · 12-22-2003, 05:14 PM

Danno,

I don\'t think we actually disagree.

My point was aimed at anyone who thought EARLY ON we should play for a high draft pick (before anyone gets upset with this, please read my earlier point - there are two ways to understand that claim, one I find unobjectionable). With only one game left and knowledge that we will not make the playoffs, I agree with you that some of the youngsters should get a chance. I don\'t think that is inconsistent with what I said above... I hope. I do remember saying that Bouman should get some playing time earlier (though I don\'t know what I think about that now). At any rate, I agree with your reply, and I still think my pseudo-argument above still holds (at least until further analysis).

Cassady37 · 12-22-2003, 05:33 PM

I can\'t say I totally disagree with you for draft sake and coaching change, but I don\'t think a team losing to position itself for a better next year is a precedent we\'d really want to start. You really don\'t want to train young players in the art of losing if you can possibly avoid it. We do that well enough already.

nocloning · 12-23-2003, 07:26 AM

I agree with JKool\'s arguments 1-4. More thoughts:
- When trying to get free agents to sign the record from the previous year may play a part. Didn\'t Fontenot for example say he only returned because he thought the Saints were a contender? The Saints have to overpay anyway, no need to make it any worse. 7-9 and 8-8 - that\'s probably the area where one win matters most in this regard.
- Playing young players for evaluation purposes: Put your best team on the field while you still have any theoretical chance of making the play-offs. How much of an indicator ONE game can now be of how well players will perform in September 2004 - I really doubt it\'ll give us that much insight, especially on a team that is so Jekyll and Hyde.
- The NFL draft is a crap shoot. Losing to move up in the draft brings you minimal advantages and a whole lot of problems. It makes sense in the NBA where you pretty much know what you\'ll get (best example: San Antonio and Tim Duncan, great idea to lose 60+ games the season before that draft), but not in the NFL.
- The Cowboys are the Cowboys! Only team I hate more are the Falcons and it would at least jump-start the healing process after this season if my Saints can beat them.

BillyC · 12-23-2003, 07:52 AM

I don\'t think that losing has ever been good for a team, no matter what the situation might be. Moving up in the draft is great and everything, but assures NOTHING !! It also doesn\'t guarantee that Benson will get rid of Haslett. The only thing it does assure is a losing record.

I think the best thing is just to let the team play and whatever happens happen. Then go in the offseason and get the players in the draft that you can to address your needs and pick up the players that you can in free agency. I would think that free agents would want to come to a team they feel is only a couple of player away, instead of going to a team that finished near the bottom of the league.

whowatches · 12-23-2003, 09:52 AM

Whodat,

I remember this argument from earlier in the season, too. I still can\'t go there with you. I still have to watch the games every week, and I hope and pray to see some heart... some guts... some friggin\' internal organ(s) from this team.

As far as losing out, the only good thing it would have accomplished in my eyes would be the end of the Haslet era. I am convinced that he and his staff are the number one reason for this team\'s shortcomings. You are correct, though; a 8-8 or 7-9 season probably means that he gets to stay.

Concerning the draft, I\'ve never been too excited about the prospect of drafting in the top ten of the first round. The talent is not impact more often than not; the money a team has to fork over is impact. I\'d much rather have a mid to late round pick. We\'ve done pretty well with those picks in the past four years or so (Deuce, Darren Howard --early second round I know but our first pick that year).

The Cowboys are the Cowboys! Only team I hate more are the Falcons and it would at least jump-start the healing process after this season if my Saints can beat them.

Could not agree more. Let\'s send the \'boys into the tournment with a butt whoopin!

[Edited on 23/12/2003 by whowatches]

BlackandBlue · 12-23-2003, 10:13 AM

The Cowboys are playing for home field advantage in the 1st round, just thought I would throw that in.

Top 10 picks from the 2003 draft

1. Carson Palmer- has not started, but looked very good in preseason.
2. Charles Rogers- Games Started- 5, Receptions- 22, Yards- 243, Avg- 11, TD- 3
3. Andre Johnson- Games Started- 15, Receptions- 61, Yards- 925, Avg- 15.2, TD- 4
4. Dewayne Robertson- Games Started- 15, Tackles- 42, Sacks- 1.5
5. Terence Newman- Games Started- 15, Tackles- 71, Sacks- 1, Interceptions- 4, Pass Deflections- 16; selected as a pro bowl alternate
6. Johnathan Sullivan- Games Started- 13, Tackles- 31, Sacks- 1
7. Byron Leftwich- Games Started- 14, Attempts- 386, Completions- 220, Completion Percentage- 57%, Yards- 2652, TD- 13, Int- 16
8. Jordan Gross- Games Started- 15
9. Kevin Williams- Games Started- 15, Tackles- 43, Sacks- 7.5, Pass Deflections- 2
10. Terrell Suggs- Games Started- 15, Tackles- 24, Sacks- 12, Int- 1, Pass Deflections- 1

[Edited on 23/12/2003 by BlackandBlue]

12-22-2003, 02:04 PM	#1
ami2kind4words 100th Post Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 149	lose saints lose I am a saints fan but I will love for the saints too lose against Dallas(anything to be able to pick up D. J. Williams in 2004 draft)
ami2kind4words 100th Post Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 149

12-22-2003, 02:52 PM	#2
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	lose saints lose OOHH... this is gonna be a good debate here I can already feel it. A while back the Saints were... I dunno, 1-5 or something like that and I suggested that the best thing for them would be to lose out. Hear me out.... my reasoning was: 1. A 5-11 type season would probably send Haslett packing whereas being close (i.e. 8-8), would allow him to blame injuries, officiating, etc. etc. and he would get another year. 2. It doesn\'t matter if this team is 8-8, 9-7, or 15-1, if they don\'t make the playoffs, the season is a failure to me. Thus, since we all know we\'ve got the talent. A bad year might mean bigger changes and a higher draft pick, allowing us to fill those all important remaining holes (i.e. MLB, CB, etc. etc. etc.), and have what we need to go al the way next year. 3. A bad year would have allowed the Saints to test unproven talent. We probably would have seen Cie Grant. Bouman may have hada chance to prove to us all one way or the other whether or not AB really is the answer. We\'d know exactly what we\'ve got. Now, I hate seeing the team lose. And I said way back then that I couldn\'t bring myself to root against them. However, the logical part of me thought then that this team wouldn\'t make the playoffs, so 5-11 with a little spark at the end of the season would be better than 8-8 and more of the same next season. Many people on this board argued with me tooth and nail. That\'s fine. All I want to ask now is, if we were 5-11 right now, would we not be in better shape to make the changes that all of us think need to be made? (New coaches, new GM, some real talent on D, etc.)? Let the games begin.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

12-22-2003, 04:37 PM	#3
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	lose saints lose Ok, I\'ll bite, and I remember you saying this earlier. First, let me say this. There are two ways to understand the idea that we would be better off losing. The first way is to suggest the team would simply be better off if it lost, regardless of its efforts. The second way is to suggest the team should simply start playing backups to get them practice and to not really try to win, but merely try to get some learning experience. My argument below only applies if you are intending the second reading, not the first. While, having missed the playoffs (and I haven\'t made up my mind about this yet), one might simply agree the team would have been better off having lost more games, here are my initial thoughts (and this is not a fully develped argument yet - but this is a really long sentence) as to why the team is better off as is: 1- There is a certain amount of psychological damage done to players when the coach gives up and benches them for \"less able\" players. I don\'t think any of our starters should have to feel like it has already been decided that they cannot win. 2- There are the fans to consider too. While some of us here would have been happy to see Cie and Bouman get some time, most fans don\'t look that closely. They want to see a team that gives it their all. (I\'m not totally sold on this point yet, but so far I like it). 3- Better record equals more respect. I\'m sick of our boys being disrespected; if we finish second in our division, even if we don\'t make the playoffs, at least we\'re not a laughing stock. 4- I like winning. I don\'t like to watch teams lose, or try to lose. Ok, that said, I agree with WhoDat on point number 1. Hopefully this gets the ball rolling in a somewhat constructive manner.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

12-22-2003, 05:05 PM	#4
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,723	lose saints lose J, good point, but I disagree completely... Now is the perfect oppurtunity to start 2004 camp early. Play your future right now... OFFENSE- Donte Stallworth- for a banged up Horn, lets see him at the #1 spot Talman Gardner- for Pathon Derrick Lewis-3rd WR Boo- keep starting, although we already know he can bing it. Zach Hilton- extended PT Johnathan Stinchcomb anywhere along the O-line. Lets show this boy what it takes in this league. Montrae Holland-keep him in for the whole game. DEFENSE Melvin Williams-increase PT Kendrick Allen-platoon with Smith James Allen-start for Rogers Cie Grant-Start for Ruff (if he\'s healthy) Keyou Craver-Start opposite Thomas or Ambrose Fakhir Brown-extended PT Devron Harper-At either Safety spot. Craver/Gardner to return all kicks/punts. If we do this for a meaningful Cowboy game it\'ll be more valuable development wise and evaluation wise than any pre-season game. [Edited on 22/12/2003 by Danno]

12-22-2003, 05:14 PM	#5
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	lose saints lose Danno, I don\'t think we actually disagree. My point was aimed at anyone who thought EARLY ON we should play for a high draft pick (before anyone gets upset with this, please read my earlier point - there are two ways to understand that claim, one I find unobjectionable). With only one game left and knowledge that we will not make the playoffs, I agree with you that some of the youngsters should get a chance. I don\'t think that is inconsistent with what I said above... I hope. I do remember saying that Bouman should get some playing time earlier (though I don\'t know what I think about that now). At any rate, I agree with your reply, and I still think my pseudo-argument above still holds (at least until further analysis).
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

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

12-22-2003, 05:33 PM	#6
Cassady37 100th Post Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Kilgore, Texas Posts: 337	lose saints lose I can\'t say I totally disagree with you for draft sake and coaching change, but I don\'t think a team losing to position itself for a better next year is a precedent we\'d really want to start. You really don\'t want to train young players in the art of losing if you can possibly avoid it. We do that well enough already.

12-23-2003, 07:26 AM	#7
nocloning 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 302	lose saints lose I agree with JKool\'s arguments 1-4. More thoughts: - When trying to get free agents to sign the record from the previous year may play a part. Didn\'t Fontenot for example say he only returned because he thought the Saints were a contender? The Saints have to overpay anyway, no need to make it any worse. 7-9 and 8-8 - that\'s probably the area where one win matters most in this regard. - Playing young players for evaluation purposes: Put your best team on the field while you still have any theoretical chance of making the play-offs. How much of an indicator ONE game can now be of how well players will perform in September 2004 - I really doubt it\'ll give us that much insight, especially on a team that is so Jekyll and Hyde. - The NFL draft is a crap shoot. Losing to move up in the draft brings you minimal advantages and a whole lot of problems. It makes sense in the NBA where you pretty much know what you\'ll get (best example: San Antonio and Tim Duncan, great idea to lose 60+ games the season before that draft), but not in the NFL. - The Cowboys are the Cowboys! Only team I hate more are the Falcons and it would at least jump-start the healing process after this season if my Saints can beat them.
nocloning 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 302	\"What is Wal-Mart? Is it like they sell wall stuff?\"

12-23-2003, 07:52 AM	#8
BillyC Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 842	lose saints lose I don\'t think that losing has ever been good for a team, no matter what the situation might be. Moving up in the draft is great and everything, but assures NOTHING !! It also doesn\'t guarantee that Benson will get rid of Haslett. The only thing it does assure is a losing record. I think the best thing is just to let the team play and whatever happens happen. Then go in the offseason and get the players in the draft that you can to address your needs and pick up the players that you can in free agency. I would think that free agents would want to come to a team they feel is only a couple of player away, instead of going to a team that finished near the bottom of the league.
BillyC Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 842

12-23-2003, 09:52 AM	#9
whowatches 500th Post Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 575	lose saints lose Whodat, I remember this argument from earlier in the season, too. I still can\'t go there with you. I still have to watch the games every week, and I hope and pray to see some heart... some guts... some friggin\' internal organ(s) from this team. As far as losing out, the only good thing it would have accomplished in my eyes would be the end of the Haslet era. I am convinced that he and his staff are the number one reason for this team\'s shortcomings. You are correct, though; a 8-8 or 7-9 season probably means that he gets to stay. Concerning the draft, I\'ve never been too excited about the prospect of drafting in the top ten of the first round. The talent is not impact more often than not; the money a team has to fork over is impact. I\'d much rather have a mid to late round pick. We\'ve done pretty well with those picks in the past four years or so (Deuce, Darren Howard --early second round I know but our first pick that year). The Cowboys are the Cowboys! Only team I hate more are the Falcons and it would at least jump-start the healing process after this season if my Saints can beat them. Could not agree more. Let\'s send the \'boys into the tournment with a butt whoopin! [Edited on 23/12/2003 by whowatches]
whowatches 500th Post Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 575

12-23-2003, 10:13 AM	#10
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	lose saints lose The Cowboys are playing for home field advantage in the 1st round, just thought I would throw that in. Top 10 picks from the 2003 draft 1. Carson Palmer- has not started, but looked very good in preseason. 2. Charles Rogers- Games Started- 5, Receptions- 22, Yards- 243, Avg- 11, TD- 3 3. Andre Johnson- Games Started- 15, Receptions- 61, Yards- 925, Avg- 15.2, TD- 4 4. Dewayne Robertson- Games Started- 15, Tackles- 42, Sacks- 1.5 5. Terence Newman- Games Started- 15, Tackles- 71, Sacks- 1, Interceptions- 4, Pass Deflections- 16; selected as a pro bowl alternate 6. Johnathan Sullivan- Games Started- 13, Tackles- 31, Sacks- 1 7. Byron Leftwich- Games Started- 14, Attempts- 386, Completions- 220, Completion Percentage- 57%, Yards- 2652, TD- 13, Int- 16 8. Jordan Gross- Games Started- 15 9. Kevin Williams- Games Started- 15, Tackles- 43, Sacks- 7.5, Pass Deflections- 2 10. Terrell Suggs- Games Started- 15, Tackles- 24, Sacks- 12, Int- 1, Pass Deflections- 1 [Edited on 23/12/2003 by BlackandBlue]
	The waiting drove me mad.... I don't want to hear from those that know... Everything has changed, absolutely nothing's changed Eddie is a....draftnik?