WhoDat

Glad that we agree Billy. Also, those of us on the Delhomme side of the fence said that Haslett didn\'t play Delhomme at the end of \'02 because he was too scared to hurt Brooks\' fragile ego - that sounds a lot like \"coddling\" to me. That decision probably cost us a playoff spot. That\'s why I\'ve been up in arms for the last 18 months or so. I knew eventually you\'d see it my way, some of us are just slower than others. Just kidding amigo.

BillyC

That\'s the problem I have with folks that think like that, WhoDat. You CLEARLY have an agenda, and let me tell ya why!!

You seem like an intelligent guy, right? Well, do you think that every coach that has played a QB that is injuried, is coddling his QB? A yes or no answer will do just fine. I\'m going to assume you would say NO, since you are an intelligent guy.

So, I ask you, what\'s unique about what Haslett did by not pulling Brooks out when he was injuried? Maybe, just maybe, you feel that way because you have Delhomme Goggles on?

I believe Brett Favre played with a broken thumb for a lot of this season and it was being blamed for a lot of the interceptions and fumbles Favre had. I\'m sure that was the case. But, that\'s just one example......There are many more. Remember Leftwitch playing with a broken ankle in college? QB\'s playing with broken ribs? It goes on and on and on and on...........

[Edited on 13/1/2004 by BillyC]

WhoDat

Wait a minute. You just said that Haslett has coddled Brooks did you not? Now, when I say that coddling kept the man in the game when he was hurt you erupt? Make up your mind, then we\'ll continue this discussion. Why is OK for you to say that Haslett coddled Brooks, but when I say it I obviously have an agenda?

I think you have a pro-Brooks and pro-Haslett agenda that doesn\'t let you see the errors the rest of us see clearly.

BillyC

Yes, I said he coddled him, but not because he made him play hurt. I said that because he didn\'t demand more of him. There\'s no agenda here WhoDat. Just the way I see it. You are doing a lot of speculating and that\'s putting it mildly.

WhoDat

I don\'t see a lot of speculation, maybe you can point it out for me.

I said that Haslett evaluated Delhomme and said that he could be a starter in a lot of places around the league.

I said that Haslett coddled Brooks.

I said that Haslett decided not to play Delhomme when Brooks was hurt.

I said that with Brooks at the helm, the Saints tanked in \'02.

Where is there subjectivity in the statements above that you do not openly agree with?

I have made the following assumptions:
1. Playing Brooks at the end of \'02 probably cost us the playoffs.
2. Haslett did not play Delhomme when he needed a healthy QB despite talking about how good Delhomme was or could be. I estimate that he didn\'t give Delhomme a fair shot b/c it\'s hard to be objective when you\'re busy coddling a player.


I ask you this Billy: If you think that Haslett was coddling one QB, do you think that he honestly could have simultaneously been totally fair in his evaluation and use of another? That\'s kind of hard to believe for me b/c by definition coddling involves special treatment. YOU talked about special treatment in an early post in this thread. Sounds like you\'re trying to simultaneously be on both sides of this fence to me.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ 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.\"

BillyC

This is the ONE and ONLY statement I was referring to. Exactly what makes you think that, as opposed to Haslett thought that gave us the best chance of winning. Also, do you think John Fox was coddling Rodney Peet when he chose to start him over Delhomme. Do you think Sherman was coddling Favre when he refused to pull him out of the game when a broken thumb was being blamed for the interceptions and the fumbling. Your logic is flawed and show\'s a reach(agenda) to me.

WhoDat

Not at all. I think Haslett was coddling Brooks. He didn\'t hold him accountable for his play on the field. Maybe he didn\'t leave him in to protect his ego but the fact that he was in shows special treatment to me. You never even put Jake in for a SINGLE series in the last three games? He played a HALF in the Baltimore game. So he was good enough to make sure we won the game in Baltimore, but not good enough to come in for a single series thereafter... against three LOSING teams with defenses WORSE than Baltimore\'s. How does that make sense?

It doesn\'t - so either Haslett really did think Brooks gave us the best chance to win, which to me shows the inability to evaluate talent, or he coddle the man, which shows the inability to allow for the fair evaluation of talent. Either way, Haslett F-ed up - it\'s lose lose for the guy.

As for the Delhomme vs. Pete issue - it was proably still close at that point in the season. Pete was your starter. It\'s his job to lose, barring injury. Unlike Haslett, when Pete sucked, Fox pulled the starter and gave his backup a chance. Imagine that. Hhmm, what happened in that game by the way? A 3 TD second half and come from behind win. Interesting what happens when you give an able backup a chance huh?

As for Favre, c\'mon. You\'re talking about one of the five or ten best QBs of all time. He plays when he\'s hurt just like Manning and McNair do - b/c they unquestionably give their teams better chances at winning. Look at what McNair and Favre have done while injured - the guys are magicians. Let\'s not compare the Brooks/Delhomme situation to the Favre/??? situation.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ 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.\"

BillyC

Well, you\'re more fair there. The truth is there\'s no reason to believe that Haslett was coddling Brooks by insisting he played hurt. That\'s a common occurance in the NFL.

I think he just didn\'t have faith in Delhomme and maybe it was a mistake. But like I said, you are reaching with the coddling thing. I think if he really wanted to coddle Brooks he would have pulled him because he was hurt and he would have still be the stater when he was healty. Haslett ain\'t that stupid. If he had of thought Jake could lead us to the promised land, he would have put him in.

WhoDat

If he didn\'t have faith in Delhomme, why did he say that Delhomme was capable of being a starter in the NFL both BEFORE AND AFTER the \'02 collapse?

And further, would you not agree that Jake has proven that he can start in the NFL this season? So if we take those statements as true (that Haslett didn\'t think Jake had what it takes), then what does that say about Haslett\'s ability to evaluate talent?

Again, it\'s a lose lose proposition Billy. Either Haslett cannot evaluate talent, or he decided not to do so fairly in this instance. You may be able to justify that behavior by saying that Haslett didn\'t want another QB controversy only a year after the Blake/Brooks competition, but that still doesn\'t make his decision right. When you\'re in season you play for wins and worry about the rest later. Period. Any way you look at it Haslett screwed the pooch - he was either wrong about Delhomme, Brooks, or both - or he chose to be close-minded about it.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ 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.\"

BillyC

Allow me to clarify. I don\'t think he had as much faith in playing a healty Delhomme over an injuried Aaron Brooks.

That statement could be true, WhoDat. But why do you want to turn this in to a conspiracy? Let\'s be honest here. You or I neither one know what Haslett thought process was. Furthermore, we don\'t even know if it was a MISTAKE not putting Delhomme in.

It\'s easy to play Monday morning QB.