Musings...........
 

I\'m inclined to agree.

However, the switches are better than sticking with the \"get bigger\" plan? Wouldn\'t you say? I think that fall under the \"if you plan is good\" clause.

Musings...........
 

Yes, the get fast plan is better than the get big plan. This year I guess we\'ll get our second taste of it. We\'ll see how well it works this time around.

Musings...........
 

It is too bad there is no simple \"get good\" plan? I bet in our case, it would involve us getting a CB before the season starts.

I\'m hoping that whatever plan we have, it doesn\'t get undermined by some players\' \"get fat\" plan.

Musings...........
 

Doing things right=efficencies
Doing the right things=effectivenss

I hope whatever the plan...it includes BOTH.

Musings...........
 

Whodat youre wrong. Jim doesnt flip flop every year. The goal from the start was to have our version of west coast offense and a aggressive defense. Jim hasnt changed that one little bit. The wides were a disappointment because they were hurt or didnt get coached right, but they are good talentwise. To get a aggresive D you got to stop the run and have fast guys. I dont see how the 2 of those things mean Jim don\'t want a aggresive D. Youre confused man.

Musings...........
 

LMAO. \"The goal from the start was to have our version of west coast offense and a aggressive defense.\" So in 2000, when we had Howard, Glover, Johnson, and Clemons and led the league in sacks we weren\'t AGGRESSIVE enough? I guess getting slower less talented players was all part of the \"more aggressive\" defense plan. Funny.

West coast offense? Hhmm - there are some sunshiners on this board that would argue we don\'t run anything close to the west coast... but I\'ll let that one go. Coincidentally, would you classify our system as one that utilizes very short and quick timing patterns and interior passes in lieu of (or to augment) the running game?

Musings...........
 

Whodat youre wrong. The leftover Ditka defense made themselves too expensive to keep. Since then, Jim\'s been trying to rebuild. Jim is also running the gulf coast offense which helps us use Aarons ability better for throwing the long pass and scrambling. Blake couldnt do neither of those things.

Musings...........
 

Wait a minute - you\'re trying to tell me that AB throws the deep ball better than Jeff Blake? HA HA HA HA HA HA! That\'s funny.

So now we\'re running the \"Gulf Coast Offense\", which by the way I have copyrighted so please send the royalties check to me by the end of the week. 1 post and you\'ve changed your mind about our offense?

Who was too expensive? Glover was allowed to walk and Haslett calls it his one major personnel mistake. Johnson wasn\'t that expensive. Clemons? That guy lead the team in tackles, sacks, and forced fumbles and is playing in Houston for peanuts. Too expensive my arse.

Musings...........
 

Did you just start watching football two years ago? Blake used to kill the competition in the longest throw competitions (year after year), so I would think that you DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS. And with you, this wouldn\'t be the first time I have thought that.

MODS NOTE: cant let ya talk like that BNB, keep it clean

[Edited on 5/7/2004 by pakowitz]

Musings...........
 

Enough. Do your homework snd you\'ll realize this ain\'t your Father\'s Saints. They didn\'t screw it up again.

I wrote \"Musings\". I called for D Line (Round 1), WR (Round 2) and CB (Round 3). I think the Saints addressed two needs in the draft - D Line and WR. I admit they didn\'t address CB but they have 4 capable CBs on the roster. Be thankful Bellamy isn\'t a corner - can you say 4 game suspension? The Saints have the ability to minimize this weakness - if it really is a weakness. The offense must hold onto the ball and the defensive line must stop the run and put pressure on the QB.

This is all very possible. The Saints have 6 GOOD defensive lineman: Howard, Grant, Young, Whitehead, Sullivan Smith, and now they have added Will Smith. And maybe found a nugget in Liesle. This year, they have stockpiled the same kind of depth on the defensive line they have had on offense for a couple of years.

You also have to look at the schedule. They play passing teams in the Superdome - St Louis, Minnesota, and Denver (they\'ll have to pass without Portis). It\'s not much of an edge but it is an edge. Maybe even more so if fans will stop whining and get behind the team.

And now consider the wide receivers - if healthy - Horn, Stallworth, Pathon, Lewis, Crowell, Gardner, and now Devery Henderson. They all can\'t be hurt at the same time and they are a great mixture of veterans and youngsters, of speed and guile, and of strength and good route-runners. Crowell and Gardner are question marks but without them there are 5 strong receivers. And what if Crowell and Gardner pan out this year........... WOW!

For those who will call me an optimist - you\'re wrong. In the last three seasons, I predicted 10-6, 8-8, and a range of 10-6 to 6-10 last year (tough schedule to call last year). The Saints were 9-7, 8-8, and 7-9. But this year, I agree with Stealthman - I think this is the year of the Saints. Watch for my predictions - game by game in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, think good thoughts.

Saintified

Musings...........
 

Well blackandblue, Blake is still a free agent if youre so turned on by him. If you really think Blake brought more to the game than Aaron I dont hardly see how you can say youve ever seen a football game before. look at how much better a player Aaron is.



Mods note: we dont need any talk like that, keep it clean

[Edited on 5/7/2004 by pakowitz]

Musings...........
 

Pak-

Can you please explain to me the difference in what I posted and what you changed it to? I\'m asking because I didn\'t realize that questioning someone\'s football knowledge was a board infraction. Namecalling, sure, but what I said can not be considered \"name calling.\"

Haz08-

I thought we were talking about Blake\'s arm strength. If you somehow get \"Blake/Brooks QB comparison\" out of me calling you to the floor for a rediculous statement, you will continually prove my previous statement for me.

[Edited on 7/5/2004 by BlackandBlue]

Musings...........
 

http://www.playa-dust.com/images/flame.jpg

Musings...........
 

what u said was that he didnt know what n the hell he was talkin about, i cant allow u to say something like that and thats Y i changed it

Musings...........
 

He doesn\'t know what he\'s talking about Pak, and far worse goes unnoticed here day in and day out. The guy said that Haslett changed the offense to allow Brooks to utilize the deep ball - something that Jeff Blake couldn\'t do. That\'s just wrong. AB\'s ability to throw the touch pass or deliver the deep ball on target have constantly been questioned. Blake made his mark on the league by being a deep ball specialist. I mean, I guess you could call this opinion, but it seems to be a pretty well documented fact to me. It\'s like saying the Steelers signed Duce Staley to add the power running game to their arsenal b/c Bettis just wasn\'t capable of playing the power game. It\'s totally inaccurate.


Denver is not and will not be a \"passing team\" any time soon. They\'ve had 4 straight 1,000 yard rushers. Griffin will be number 5. Portis is a stud, so was TD, but their offensive line is the key to their success. Like SF and QBs, it really doesn\'t matter whose back there, they\'re going to play very well.

Musings...........
 

Yall wear me out. Anybody goes to disagree with you and you go crying to the moderators for your own nasty language. Whodat got all carried aways on Jim changing everything every year. I called bs on him. Jim aint changed nothing. The only thing thats changed is Jim has brought in guys that might help us win. The guys we draft are guys that are going to help us win. Jim aint running some kind of monkey-see monkey-do team here. Jims doing the same kind of offense now as from day one and the same kind of defense as from day one. I got sidetracked on why Blake got replaced. He threw the ball a long ways, but Aaron replaced him because he give us a better chance to win ball games. If big arm Blake was so great hed be startin in arizona this year. The problem with you boys is you throw around all this nasty language and then go cryin to the moderators when somebody gets tired of takin your nonsense or when the moderators clean up the verbal diarreha you put up on this board. You boys will probably rather gang up on the new fella than actually talk about football though.

Musings...........
 

Haz,

Don\'t take this the wrong way, but I\'m unclear on what you think is staying the same? As of your last post, it sounded like you were saying this: Jim hasn\'t changed his strategy at all, since his strategy is to win. Of course, that is everyone\'s goal, it was his short term goals that were interesting - in the midst of all this other stuff, I lost track of your original thesis.

Musings...........
 

Haz,

It\'s pretty clear that either A) you don\'t watch much football, or B) you don\'t understand what you see.

First, let me get this Blake nonsense out of the way. Neither I nor BnB are suggesting that Jeff Blake is a better option at QB than Aaron Brooks. However, you said that Haslett made the change b/c Brooks can scramble better and throw the long ball better. Those reasons are completely incorrect. We don\'t argue that Brooks is the better option, but the reasons you give show a distinct lack of football knowledge.


Now to the original issue. You think Haslett\'s strategy has stayed the same huh? When he got here we had Ricky Williams. Our offense was geared on an up-the-middle, hard nosed, pound it type of football game. Jim CHANGED that and went to a more pass oriented attack. He quickly substituted a speedier and more elusive Deuce for Williams. In 2002 we were chucking the ball all over the field. In 2003, Deuce was more of a focus.

The defense is even worse. We had a very good defense when Haslett got here. He made moves to ship out good players and bring in \"big boys\". Our defense dropped year over year until we were ranked 23rd or something like that in 2002. Then he went for speed, rebuilt the thing, and now his strategy is continuity.

The point in all of this is two-fold - first, things have changed a lot. They change every year. If you can\'t see that, well.... Second, the argument is not whether each of these individual strategies is good or bad, but whether or not it is a good idea to change your strategy every single year. IMO, it\'s a really bad idea. That\'s why we\'re on Haslett about it.

Is that clear enough for you to understand?

Musings...........
 

JKool,

Requirements of future Saints head coaching applicants (in no specific order);

It is my way or the HIGHWAY!

You put in the time at practice and you get playing time (PT)!

One detrimental comment about this team and you\'re gone!

Around here, you EARN respect, not demand IT!

Your ideal playing weight on this team is ----! Either eat or go on a diet, I don\'t care cause you will not get PT if you are NOT at your ideal weight.

I select the coaches, you follow their direction. This is not a democracy!

We took a vote, and yours did not count!

You complain to the press about me, your teammates, or this organization...you\'re gone!

I catch you smiling or laughing on the field when we are losing by 1 pt, much less 28, and you\'re PT will diminish!

You got a contract problem...get it settled BEFORE you come to practice...or GAME TIME!

BTW; your contract or bonus does not translate into automatic PT!

If you are hurt, tell me. If you are hurt, you have my permission to sit your arse on the bench!

Playing hurt isn\'t macho, but it does cause us to lose games.

I call the plays and you execute them! Got IT!

You don\'t like my defense, fine, find another team!

You don\'t like my offense, fine, find another team!

Playing football is a job which requires, few if any, mental mistakes. If you prone to making mental mistakes, find another job!

Life in football, as you once knew it, does not exist any longer!

You can have an ATTITUDE, as long as I give it to you!

I am a religous man, and understand your soul is God\'s, but while on this team your arse is MINE.

WINNING isn\'t everything...IT IS THE ONLY THING!

I do not SCREAM, but at the end of the day you will have wished I HAD!

What you do off the field is your business, as long as I know about it and approve of it beforehand!

You get drunk at a party, call a CAB!

You do drugs, get on a FAST TRAIN out of town!

You have a tendency to carry a weapon, drop the tendency!

You like shooting at people, join the MILITARY...they need good men like you!


[Edited on 8/5/2004 by biloxi-indian]

Musings...........
 

B-I,

I agree that coaches should have a very strict attitude about player conduct off the field and in terms of practice. I\'m fairly certain that Haz does - it is just not explicit for us. This is why so many \"cancers\" have hit the road.

IMO it is not that code that matters so much as what you do as a coach to make sure that your players follow the code. If you have a rule like \"no drugs or you\'re out\", you don\'t sell the players drugs.

A major knock against Haz, that I believe is the case is not that he isn\'t tough enough on players who aren\'t behaving as he\'d like, it is that he cannot get the players (motivate, lead, whathaveyou) to behave that way without mere punishments. Truly great coaches have both punishments and motivatiors (that is, they, for whatever reason, have the charisma to get players to WANT to not get punished rather than just not like the punishments).

Wow, that wasn\'t particularly clear, but I hope you got my idea.

Musings...........
 

I\'ve beat this topic with 2 or 3 sticks -- with no success. I agree with what you\'re saying JKool -- I think what most of the critics (bashers) are saying is Haslett can\'t push the right buttons to turn the \"cancers\" into \"diamond.\"

I\'ve been sayin\' it and sayin\' it, time and time again, that this isn\'t unique to Haslett. Maybe certain people think it goes on more in New Orleans than other places because they keep up with the Saints more. But, it happens to almost every team with just as much frequency.

I listed a bunch of examples on another thread of \"cancerous\" players. (Which I got NO response from) Does anyone remember Jimmy Johnson\'s days with the Cowboys? Can you say Leon Lett?

Musings...........
 

There\'s ONE GIANT difference in that example Billy. Super Bowls - a couple of them.

I don\'t give a damn if Haslett can\'t control his players off the field if it doesn\'t affect them on the field. They win, I give the man slack and benefit of the doubt. When he has one of the most talented teams this organization has ever had and can\'t get above .500 - then I don\'t give that slack. Then one has to wonder if the lack of discipline shows on the field. Think it does Billy? Think things like penalties, missed blocks, dropped passes, etc. are discipline and focus issues? Wasn\'t that a huge part of the problem last year - by your own comments?

Musings...........
 

If you want to criticize Haslett for his team not living up to expectations, I can\'t argue with you there. If you want to say he has made mistakes by not addressing areas of need on the team, I can\'t argue with you there.

But, when you say it\'s Haslett\'s fault that certain players (and it\'s been no more than other teams) have been \"troubled\"players, then I\'m going to have to disagree.

Just because Haslett hasn\'t won a superbowl, it doesn\'t make it anymore his fault than Jimmy Johnson. Now, I can see how Jimmy Johnson was cut more slack because of the success he enjoyed in Dallas. Winning tends to make fans happy and not living up to expectations, well............it tends to make fans crticize EVERYTHING.

The point I\'m trying to make is, you have some legit gripes, but I think you expand on those legit gripes and use them to hit ol\' Jim over the head for some things that aren\'t his fault.

WhoDat -- You have some valid gripes about Haslett. The man has been disappointing. I think he\'s made a lot of mistakes. But, I\'m going to try and be unbiased. Take this upcoming year for example. He\'s said he can\'t wait to show us what kind of team we have. I can\'t wait either. If he flops, can I join you, gator, and 08?? -- Together we can can the man run out of Nawlins. -- ;)

[Edited on 10/5/2004 by GumboBC]

Musings...........
 

Bill,

I am not saying that players being overweight is Jim Haslett\'s FAULT per se. I am saying that A) Jim is not doing a good job HELPING those players, and B) that the problems with this team are a SIGNAL that Jim is at least questionable at head coach.

You and Saintfan like to play the same game. If we look at a specific incident, you may be right in your assessment that this isn\'t a big deal. Sure, other coaches have players that have weight problems. Other coaches struggle with team discipline, fundamentals, \"cancer\" players, player buy-in, FA busts, draft busts, and let-down seasons. There is no question that those things happen everywhere.

HOWEVER, the question you have to ask is do ALL of those things happen as FREQUENTLY and in the same QUANTITY than occurs in NO? I don\'t think so. Maybe it does, but it happens to coaches in Arizona or the Cincinnati of old, or San Diego. It doesn\'t happen with successful programs and/or successful coaches.

Further, the bottom line here is results and results mean wins and losses. As a new head coach, in your first year or two, you may be able to measure results differently than wins and losses, true, but after that, wins and losses is the ONLY thing that matters in this league when it comes to performance evaluation for a head coach and his staff.

When you look back at Jim Haslett, it is easy to see an average win/loss record. Well, average isn\'t so bad - why all the fuss? B/c he has had some of, if not the, most talented teams this organization has ever had. Further, our talent is above average when compared to the rest of the NFL. Coaches like Andy Reid, Bellicheck, Parcells, Gruden (Oakland), Fox, Fisher, Fassel, even Herm Edwards have all done more with as much or less. Haslett has had free reign to do whatever he wants with this team and so far, things haven\'t gotten any better.

So, when I say tisk tisk to Jim Haslett when the first round draft pick that he spend two number ones on to fill a hole left by overweight defensive linemen shows up to camp overweight, I think it\'s not totally unfounded.

Musings...........
 

WhoDat --

I say Haslett doesn\'t have a higher rate of problem players on his team than most other coaches. Whether that be successful coaches or unsuccessful coaches. I can prove it if you like, but, you are the one making these claims. Have you ever done any research to see if this is true? I\'m just asking and I think it\'s a fair question.

If you don\'t know if it happens with more frequency, then isn\'t it entirely possible that you are making more out of it than what it is??

Now, l said earlier that I can\'t argue with you on the results that Haslett has gotten, or not gotten. He\'s made a bunch of mistakes and I agree with you on your assessment of \'em.

Musings...........
 

I\'m not sure that anyone has the power to turn the cancers into diamonds - I think that is usually due to a combination of things: a coach who is able to get the player to see beyond the problem, a new environment that helps the player see beyond his immediate problems, a maturation of the player (we all know these kids are still growing up at 22), family life, and understanding of what to do with new found wealth, and so on. The coach is never the only factor in making a player into a good person and, thus, a good player.

Every team has the problems. As Billy points out, it may be the frequency with which \"cancers\" appear that is troubling. Someone more ambitious than I can probably find out these frequencies. Until then I remain skeptical about how Haz is doing in this regard. My point (to B-I\'s comments) was that it is not enough for a coach to have strict punishments for misbehaving players, but it is also his job to help them not misbehave in the first place (punishments being only one way to do this).

WhoDat, your point is really that winning the SBs in Jimmy\'s case is evidence that he could keep the cancers from derailing the team\'s goals. That is, Haz hasn\'t done enough to show that he is handling the second part of his coachly duties (he does have punishments, but not the other part I noted) - it isn\'t that he is not trying, or is bad at it, or whathaveyou (though I think you could provide evidence for it, I don\'t believe I\'ve heard enought to say one way or the other yet). Thus, there is a difference between Haz\'s cancers and Jimmy\'s - namely that Jimmy\'s didn\'t keep the team from succeeding, in Haz\'s case we cannot say that. Right?

I also agree that we need to look at more general trends. We have all been talking about this for a bit now. I guess the question I have is this: how do we know when two problems are related (that seems to be Billy\'s general strategy too)? Lately, I\'d have to say that WhoDat\'s arguments have been pretty good - and I think that is a result of explicating the connection between two problems, not simply pointing out a bunch of problems and saying that they\'re related. Of course, the challenges have some merit too. (Mmmm... Granola).

Cheers.

Musings...........
 

Once upon a time, Billy and I were arguing about two QBs - Aaron Brooks and Peyton Manning. Billy argued that Manning was not as good as everyone made out. That he hadn\'t won the big one, and that his father hadn\'t won much when he was in the league either. He said that in general he equated the word Manning with the word loser. At the same time, Billy argued that my criticisms of AB were unfair and that parallels could be made between AB and some of the best QBs in the league.

I solved two arguments easily by asking Billy a simple question: would you trade AB for Peyton Manning straight up? He said that he would. So basically, he derailed both of his arguments, to some extent, b/c he affirmed that Manning is better than this QB he was giving so much credit to, while also showing that this QB wasn\'t worth more than a consumate \"loser\".

I find that this is a simple way to clear a topic that may otherwise be muddied. So ask yourself, who wouldn\'t you \"trade\" Haslett for?

Our Division
Gruden - yup
Fox - yup
Mora - nope.

Hell, go division by division if you need to

NFC East
Parcells - bye Jimmy.
Reid - buh-bye.
Coughlin - sign on the line.
Gibbs - maybe... that\'s a wait and see kind of move.

AFC East
Herm Edwards - yep
That guy up in NE? uh maybe... ;)
Wannstedt - not a chance.
Mularkey - Probably, but that\'s a wait and see also.

... you do the rest if you feel it\'s worth it. My point is simple, there are a lot of coaches that I would prefer in here over Jim. The Saints are only 1 of what? 4 teams? that haven\'t made the playoffs in the last three seasons. Us, Cincinnati, San Diego, and Arizona? Is that right? Now that\'s great company to be in. If that\'s good enough for you, fine, but it\'s not for me. Now gimme a granola bar and some tp I\'m going to take a dump in the woods! ;)

Musings...........
 

:P :P :P :P :P :P Please !! You\'re killing me WhoDat.

What really happened was WhoDat was raking Brooks over the coal pretty good and I used Peyton Manning as an example.

Actually, what I was doing was pointing to all the playoff games that Peyton had choked in. And even big gamse in college. It\'s a well documented fact. To prove a point to WhoDat, I said I equate the name \"Manning\" to the word \"loser.\" Because he choked in the playoffs.

Then WhoDat asked me if I would trade Brooks for Manning. I said yes. I said yes because I thought Peyton would correct his mistakes in the playoffs. Even though Peyton had choked in the playoffs for 4 staight years, I had confidence in Peyton. Although he choked big time in the AFC championship game this year, I still have confidence in Peyton.

Just like I have confidence in Brooks. But, given the chance to trade Brooks for Peyton, straight-up -- I have to be honest -- I would do it.



[Edited on 10/5/2004 by GumboBC]

Musings...........
 

Crawfish, crawfish, crawfish - bottom line, you\'d trade AB for a loser. There\'s only two logical conclusions that can be drawn: 1) You\'re a nimrod b/c you\'d trade a good QB for a \"loser\", or 2) AB is a \"big loser\". LMAO. :)

STALLOWNED!!!! ;)


And don\'t change the subject, you\'re avoiding my argument probably b/c the same would hold true here for Haslett and coaches. Don\'t be skerd Billy, it\'s ok. ;)

Musings...........
 

I might ask you to prove this Statement Whodat, but I know you can\'t because you don\'t follow another team (I\'m guessing) as closely as you follow the Saints. If you did I think you\'d see the same type of moaning and complaining from just about every team\'s fans in the league, and I think you know it. Other team\'s boards are full of the same type of, \"this player stinks\", \"Lets fire the coach\", \"Our draft sucked\", kind of stuff too.

It\'s easy to say, \"I dont\' think so\", but it\'s an entirely different thing to validate it.

Musings...........
 

You guys had better say \"no\" or this is going to become one of those threads.

Musings...........
 

That all depends, Gator.

Playoffs isn\'t my prerequisite. While the playoffs are the goal for every team, there are many things that can happen, during the course of a season that is out of control of the coach.

Let me just say this, though. I think we should make the playoffs and barring some kind of catastrophic event, if we don\'t make the playoffs, I will be calling for Haslett to go.

Musings...........
 

While I think that the idea of whom you\'d trade for whom is generally illuminating, the question I was asking is this: does it seem that Haz has trouble motivating players (by means of charisma, understanding, rah-rahness, or whathaveyou) independently of his abiliity to punish them (some sort of mere classical conditioning)? That question will not be answered by looking at who you\'d trade for whom - since there may be many other reasons to make the trade. The question that you could get some mileage out of might be this: if you were going to bring in an attitude coach, who had no other duties that getting the players to grow up and act maturely, which coach would it be? I\'d have to say that I don\'t think we have any reason to say \"Haz\" - that doesn\'t mean he can\'t, it just means we haven\'t seen any progress there. WhoDat might say Jimmy, since he managed to keep his cancerous players from preventing important wins - a decent answer.

Musings...........
 

IMHO, the players do not seem to be fired up for the games. They seem to be lackadaisical when on the field. I\'ve always heard that teams take on the personality of the coach. But, that\'s not how it is in this case.

I think there has been some things that have affected the confidence of this team. Especially the late season collapses. Because their confidence is shaky, I think when any little thing goes wrong, they play scared, or without any confidence. That usually happens with young teams. And, we are a relatively a young team. Then it\'s so much player turn-over every year, they\'re not sure what they have.

Confidence is a funny thing. People can do great things when they\'re confident. When they start doubting themselves, things usually don\'t go well.

With that said, it is Haslett\'s job to get the players to believe in themselves. X\'s and O\'s are fine and dandy, but coaching goes way beyond that. Another thing, maybe the players aren\'t confident in Haslett. I can\'t say for sure that they aren\'t. I can say with confidence, they didn\'t quit on Haslett last year. I think that speaks volume.

That\'s why I think it\'s imperative to start the season out on a high note. What comes first, winning or confidence?

Musings...........
 

That has much to do with WHY they didn\'t make the playoffs. If I see injuries to key players that take \'em down for several games at a time...if I see otherwise capable WR\'s dropping passes that hit \'em in the hands (Whodat blames Haz for this...I hold the players SOLEY responsible), all combined -- I might be inclined to keep Jim around.

However, if the Saints bumble and stumble all over the field playing like bums while they are otherwise healthy then I might be inclined to think otherwise.

So the answer is it depends on why they didn\'t make it. See, I saw the Saints win 7 of thier last 11. They got Howard back and that seemed to make a large difference in the play of the defense. A-N-Y-B-O-D-Y that tells me that injuries don\'t make a difference isn\'t watching the same game I\'m watching. I really think Haz, barring all the injury (out of his control) and roster turnover (within his control) can take the team into the playoffs and beyond.

Musings...........
 

So basically - if the Saints are healthy they have to make the playoffs for Haslett to keep his job?

Musings...........
 

I would have to say yes. I can even see a case where they do make the playoffs and I would still want Haslett gone.

Musings...........
 

I\'m going to hold you to that statement William.

Musings...........
 

Perhpas so, and perhaps not Gator, but I\'d rather be depressed in January than stay that way from now \'til then ;)

:P

Musings...........
 

Gator\'s havin antoher pipe dream! LOL

All I can say Gator is that I hope you\'re wrong about Haz. If last years team hadn\'t been so wet behind the ears and if the injuries hadn\'t hit \'em so hard I might be whistelin\' a tune similar to yours. We\'ll just have to see -- and I\'m willin to put the price of a six pack (import of course) on the line. Let\'s make that bet after the final pre-season game...

:P