GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Although I've said something to this effect before, I want to give WhoDat his just due.

WhoDat and myself often get in some spirited debates on a variety of topics. Neither one of us usually concede too much in our beliefs and a lot of the things we argue about can't be proven until enough time has passed to have sufficient evidence.

Well, one of the things WhoDat told me last year is that Haslett was a major problem and because of that he didn't have a lot of faith in the 2003 season. I agrued and argued with WhoDat that he was wrong. And this went on for a while.

Now, I must be a man and admit the one that was wrong was ME.

I'm now seeing things exactly like WhoDat saw them last year as far as Haslett is concerned.

I suppose the reason I didn't see it last year was because of how great the team had started out the past couple of years and I wanted to believe the late season collapses were not the fault of Haslett. I now think otherwise.

This is not to say that I think everything has been Hasletts fault and I don't think WhoDat is suggesting that either. But, it now seems so clear to me that Haslett has made a lot of mistakes. Mistakes that just can't be dismissed.

Anyway, WhoDat, I'll concede this one to you. I don't mind admitting I was wrong. I just hope Haslett can turn things around because at this point he worries me more than anything else.

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Anybody else waiting on Bizarro Superman to come tumbling out of the sky???

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

It\'s bird. It\'s a plane. It\'s bizarro superman.

Nah. This is the \"new\" me. Halo\'s \"ban\" camp has made a new man out of me.

For those of you that have never experienced \"ban\" camp. Let me fill you in on a few things.

When you try and access the forum it says \" You have been banned - you may not read any posts on the forum and you cannot make any posts.\"

In \"ban\" camp you have a lot of time to reflect on your posting habits. Suddenly you realize that the moderators aren\'t going to change and your need to get you act together if you want to post here.

And you cry and beg to Halo to come back and he\'s got that \"Parcells\" attitude. ;) You know the one. The one where the individual isn\'t as important as the team. (the board)

But, Halo gives you one more chance when you\'ve been the Keyou Craver of the board. Sometimes you\'ve got to put down the wacky weed and fly straight.

Then you come back and Paks a moderator. What\'s the world coming to? Somehow, I get the feeling Pak doesn\'t mind bannng folks... :P

And 08. He\'d just as soon ban you as look at you. ;)

So, if any of you are thinking of pushing the envelope, beware. There is a \"ban\" camp. It\'s real. But, if you do go. I think I left my some magazines and popcorn there. You can have \'em. :D










[Edited on 22/6/2004 by GumboBC]

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Got one question about \"ban camp\"- did you get any musical instruments stuck in any of your orifices?

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

You\'re a ******* nut. LMAO. ;) I have no idea where that come from. But, to satisfy your curiousity. NO!! There ain\'t nothing there but a bed and 4 walls.

You know, B&B. I salute you also. You\'ve been able to say what you want in such a way that it\'s been pure genius. And never get in trouble, no less.

And all the while you are always gramatically correct. All the commas, periods, and whatnot are always perfectly done.

You are, indeed, the man!!

Budweiser salutes you Mr. Gramatically Correct Man........ :P

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Ban them all and let Halo sort them out .....LMAO...... :P

You forgot to mention Saintfan .......He moved up too the big board ...

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Amazing. I guess you can teach a crazy-a$$ dog new tricks! LMAO. ;)

JKool - get out the granola for this one!!!

Billy - I\'ll give props right back. I\'ve said time and again that this place just isn\'t the same without out. Right or wrong you\'re spirited and educated and the place can use as many guys like that as possible. Granted, the goggles keep you from seeing things straight every once in a while, but we\'re working on that. ;)

Tell you what, if Brooks has the kind of year that I think he should have this season, you\'ll be getting one of these from me. I\'m dreading it... but also ready for it. Regardless, I do want the guy to succeed b/c it\'s good for the team. I really hope that he\'s a Pro Bowler this season, and have already said this offseason that I think there\'s a real chance that he will be. Of course, if he isn\'t, he\'s a bum! ;)

Finally, regarding Haslett, like Brooks, I really want the guy to prove me wrong. I do, I just can\'t see it. With Brooks at least I see the possibility. With Haslett, if this team is successful I believe it will have a hell of a lot more to do with ridiculous amounts of talent and little to do with coaching. In any case, thanks for the post man.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming: Billy, you\'re full of ish!! LOL

[Edited on 23/6/2004 by WhoDat]

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

I met this chick one time at band camp.... oh wait... you said \"ban\" camp. Nevermind.

This place certainly is more interesting with you here, Billy. Glad you\'ve had a Benny Hinn moment.

Beautiful. That\'s why we love him. :heartpump: :heartpump:

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

I hate all of you :P

Yeah, much better than his Benny Hill moments :D

[Edited on 23/6/2004 by BlackandBlue]

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Billy forgot me. Heaven only knows how many times I\'ve defended him in the interest of...well...it doesn\'t matter. I can\'t believe I\'ve been forgotten. OK, I can, but that still stings Billy. Me thinks I need a beer...and some granola. Where\'s JKool? :P

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Heaven only knows? Now, you ought to know that the \"pessimists\" here don\'t believe in heaven. They need some hard proof that it exsists.

They gave up on the thought of there being a God when their prayers went unanswered that Jake Delhomme would get the nod over Aaron Brooks. :P

Being the optimist that I am, I believe in God and I beleive and Aaron Brooks and the Saints. But, getting these chumps to believe in Brooks, Haslett, and the Saints is a tall order.

You want to talk about heaven?! Heaven?! Dude, these guys don\'t believ in nothing that\'s not proven.... :P

I haven\'t deserted you saintfan. I gotcha back. This season here at B&G is going to be a blast.

Sunshiners vs. Whotangers. We\'ve signed more free agents this year. The tables have turned. 08 is the wild card. We need to put our best guy on 08. You can\'t stop 08 but we can hope to contain him.....LMAO.......

[Edited on 23/6/2004 by GumboBC]

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

We sunshiners are gaining, but the dark side is strong.

08 is the leader of course, and his deciples are many.

Perhaps someone should challenge him for leadership of the clan. :P

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Awww...the dark lord is powerful. I can gladly say I was his original nemesis way back when. Of course the topic was Aaron Brooks and since then he has pulled me in...couldn\'t resist...I feel the dark side.....of course, Haslett and Brooks had a lot to do with it. Lead on 08, the death star is near completion, I\'d say it\'ll be finished after this next year and then we\'ll RULE!

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

With Hasbeen at the helm and fumbalaya under center , the universe is ours for the taking..... :red:

Here is an interesting note :

ESPN25: WORST 25 TEAMS, 1979-2004

( Top choice of the experts to the left and to the right the voters poll )

WORST 25 TEAMS

As selected by ESPN25\'s Expert Panel WORST 25 TEAMS
As ranked by ESPN.com SportsNation users

1. 1991 Prairie View Football 1. 1991 Prairie View Football

2. 1981 Northwestern Football 2. 1980 New Orleans Saints

3. 1985 Columbia U. Football 3. 1999-00 L.A. Clippers


4. 1986-87 L.A. Clippers 4. 1997-98 Denver Nuggets

5. 1997-98 Denver Nuggets 5. 1991-92 Prairie View Hoops


6. 1992-93 San Jose Sharks 6. 1992-93 Dallas Mavericks

7. 1998 Florida Marlins 7. 1992-93 Ottawa Senators


8. 1991-92 Prairie View Hoops 8. 1998 Florida Marlins

9. 1996 Detroit Tigers 9. 2000 Duke Football

10. 1988 Baltimore Orioles 10. 1981 Northwestern Football

11. 1992-93 Ottawa Senators 11. 1990 N.E. Patriots

12. 1999-2000 L.A. Clippers 12. 1996 Detroit Tigers


13. 1988 Kansas State Football 13. 2002 TB Devil Rays

14. 1992-93 Dallas Mavericks 14. 1988 Baltimore Orioles


15. 1997 Rutgers Football 15. 1986-87 L.A. Clippers

16. 2002 TB Devil Rays 16. 1996 New York Jets


17. 1981-82 Cleveland Cavaliers 17. 1989 Dallas Cowboys

18. 1980 New Orleans Saints 18. 1997 Rutgers Football



19. 1996 New York Jets 19. 1992-93 San Jose Sharks

20. 2001 U. of Houston Football 20. 1985 Columbia U. Football


21. 1995-96 Vancouver Grizzlies 21. 1988 Kansas State Football

22. 1990 N.E. Patriots 22. 1995-96 Vancouver Grizzlies


23. 2000 Duke Football 23. 2001 U. of Houston Football

24. 1989 Dallas Cowboys 24. 1981-82 Cleveland Cavaliers


25. 1982-83 Houston Rockets 25. 1982-83 Houston Rockets

And a side note to the 80 season was that several players on the team at the time admitted to cocaine use during the games . Of course so did Lawrence Taylor but he made it to the Super Bowl ..... ;)

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Ok guys, I brought the granola. Dig in! This is gonna be one heck of a fun season.

I love you all. Ok, maybe not, but I sure do enjoy ya\'lls ramblin\'s.

Billy, before we get all sunshiney on yo\' azz, please explain how the coaching could be the reason for the late season collapses... ;) We both know that there could be oh so many reasons for that...

I agree, Haz needs some boots to da nutz, but maybe he\'ll turn it around... ahhhhh, is that the sun coming up?

All right, everybody gather round, I brought the tree too and it may be time for a group hug. :D

[Edited on 24/6/2004 by JKool]

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Uhhhhh, do you 2 guys need some private time? We can leave yall alone if you need......

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

I\'m not absolutely sold that Haslett is entirely responsible for BOTH late season collapses or the collapse at the beginning of last season. But, I do hold him responsible for the team. I just don\'t we can give Haslett a free pass. It\'s one thing to spread some sunshine. Let\'s not get blinded by the sunshine..... ;)


If you\'ve ever read some of mine and WhoDat\'s debates, then you know we get in some pretty heated battles. But, you start losing credibility if you don\'t step up to the plate and admit you\'re wrong.

There will be no alone time required... ;) I\'m looking for the first chance I can find to make WhoDat look like the chump he is.... :P

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Uh Billy - what? So you believe in things that can\'t be proven? Is that what you\'re saying? And we \"pessimists\" are by the numbers guys???

That sure does sound a tad bit different than:


And once again, the mighty Whodat pulls back the curtain to reveal to all the Sunshiners just who their leader truly is. I don\'t believe in MAGIC. This \"it\" talk is all hogwash. 10 seconds later - come now Saintfan, those guys don\'t believe in anything that can\'t be proven. I believe in Brooks.

Folks, I\'ve said it before and I will continue to say it - it all goes back to Brooks for this guy. He doesn\'t admit that players have intangibles b/c he knows Brooks has none. So now he\'s all about what he can prove with numbers.

Shall I go back to the 2002 season when I was using statistics like Passer Efficiency Rating, Completion Percentage, TD:INT ratio, Yards per Attempt to show Brooks was in the bottom part of the league amongst QBs? What did the guy say then? You can prove anything you want with statistics - they don\'t mean anything to me.

At least I am CONSISTENT in my ratings.

Keep looking. :P

Man, it\'s not a \"Perfect Thread\" without a good Billy burn. :) Where\'s that STALLOWNED picture?

[Edited on 24/6/2004 by WhoDat]

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

The Movie? Ok, I\'m lost. Either too much or not enough Granola. JKool has been hoggin\' the tree.

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Just a little slow today. I get it. They failed to draw the correct numbers for the mega millions here in Texas again. I haven\'t recovered.

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

That\'s a shame Saintfan - you should start a support group with Billy. He\'s still trying to \"draw\" the right numbers to support his pipe dream also. LMAO. ;)

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Gator --

You\'ll have to excuse the title of the thread, as it was the least gay title I could come up with. You see, I\'m don\'t eat much granola and the concept of admitting I\'m wrong is something that\'s new to me. In other words, I\'m new to the system. I\'ll get better.....

Now!! Yes, I have used different criteria to judge certain people or things. But, we all know who started all of that. That honor goes to the WhoTang clan.

The difference is I have no trouble admitting it. Doesn\'t make any difference to me.

To borrow a line from BlackandBlue:

“Now, we can split hairs all you want, doesn\'t matter to me. You say \'tomato\', I say \'BS\'. \" LMAO

We can have debates where we can be fair, or I can play the game too. Doesn\'t make much difference to me. I\'ll argue with a goat if I think he\'s wrong.........LOL.

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

I sleep better with a lotto ticket whodat...what can I say. And I DO have the right numbers, they just refuse to pick \'em. They\'ll come around tho...ya gotta have some faith my man.

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

I gotta ask - how often does the goat win? LMAO.

Hey Billy - in all seriousness, you say the WhoTang clan uses different criteria to judge QBs. I assume you include me in that group. Answer a question for me, have I deviated from these measurements

QB
Tangible: efficiency numbers that are comparitive, not raw. In other words, I look at completion percentage, yards per attempt, TD:INT, etc. as compared to yards, TDs, and the like on their own. Has that changed?

Intangibles: I look at smarts and decision-making indicators (granted this is much less objective than when you have hard stats, but..) and leadership as the two primary categories. Have I deviated from that? I also like fiery players more than quiet calm ones, but that is a small consideration.

Other considerations: value - pay versus performance.


Now, did I not bash Brooks in late \'02 for his numbers in those categories? Did I say despite having great raw totals in yards and TDs he wasn\'t very efficient? Did I not say that he compared poorly to other QBs in that regard?

In early \'03, was I not the FIRST person to come to his defense based on THOSE same measurements when they got better, despite low yardage totals and TDs?

Have I not maintained that I think Brooks is not best suited for our system (or what was our system, I\'m not sure what it is anymore) and that I thought he was being overvalued (overpaid)?

Can you show me where I have ever fluctuated in those views?


Can you remember in \'02 when you and Saintfan polarized the argument and said that because I was considering comparative measurements like completion percentage and passer efficiency that I was making up things to find wrong with him? SOmethign about, \"if you look at a guy\'s numbers in the first quarter of rainy days in outdoor games in Charolette you may have an agenda...\" Do you remember talking about all the yards he had and the TDs?

Do you remember a year later in \'03 when you said it didn\'t matter that those numbers were down from a year ago b/c his completion percentages were up? Is that not a complete 180?

Now you\'re talking about how you don\'t believe in magic in one thread but do in another??? Can you see that one \"playing the game\" is not me? My guess, probably not. You\'ve contradicted yourself more times than I can remember Bill. You say one thing and sometimes immediately, sometimes a year later you completely flop and then talk about how we\'re playing games. C\'mon man. Honestly, in this case I\'m not trying to burn you - but you wanna talk about me being on the fence with Brooks - at least I\'m on it and not back and force on either side of it as often as he fumbles the ball.

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Saintfan - you\'re take on Saints football just became much clearer. :P

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

WhoDat --

To make this short and sweet, let\'s leave me out of it for a minute. K?

It\'s your statement that you have been completely fair on all things at all time? Is that what you\'re telling me? If so, I\'m sure I\'m not alone when I don\'t beleive you.. As many folks have pointed out to you. You just refuse to believe it.

You have used everything in the world to show how Brooks was.....well......ummmmm.....let\'s say not worthy.

You tried to tell us that he wasn\'t right for our West Coast Offense, when we kept telling you that we really didn\'t run the west coast offense. I told you. Saintfan told you, but it made no difference to you because it helped to further your AGENDA. You never took into consideration that we didn\'t really run the west coast offense when you watched the games the same as us. But, it did help you to try and prove a point, didn\'t it? ;)

I told you a long time ago that I really didn\'t give a damn about stats. All I was worried about was the QB putting up points for the offense. We led the NFC in scoring but you wanted to talk about completion percentage. Completion percentage doesn\'t put points on the board. Thought, It\'s helpful. But, points wins game and I\'ll take points over a higher completion percetage any day of the week.

To wrap this up, you\'ve let your dislike for Brooks game get in the way of being fair with your evaluation of Brooks just like I\'m unfair in defending him at times.

Come on WhoDat.



[Edited on 24/6/2004 by GumboBC]

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

For the record - we did run the west coast in 2000 and 2001 - we ran a variant in \'02 and now we seem to have mostly abandoned it for a scheme that is more pro style in its run appraoch and one that tries to stretch the field with the pass.

In any case, my view may be skewed to some degree, but i wouldn\'t necessarily say I was unfair with Brooks.

I will admit to being hasty, should he have a good year this season and continue to improve. I will admit my wrongs there and say that you and Saintfan were right in wanting to grant the guy some time, IF he plays better ball this season. However, if AB finds a new and exciting may to screw up this season (locking onto Joe Horn, backpeddling, throwing off his back foot, fumbling, or something totally new), I won\'t feel that I was being unfair.

I continue to believe that we paid Brooks before he proved his worth and that move has not paid off. I also think that at the time, my criticisms of the guy were not unfair. He was inefficient. He did make bad decisions. Did he not? Now, it seems like you may turn out to be right in his ability to improve, but to date, you have not been vindicated. That said, I hope you are Billy, I really do.

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

My argument \"for\" Brooks is now and has always been that the problem with our team hasn\'t been points scored. You can argue \"it\" until you actually figure out how to clone \"it\" in a lab, but this team\'s problem has been DEFENSE, and while all the Who-Tanger\'s and 08er-aid consumers were hollering this, that, and the other in an attempt to show their general displeasure with Brooks as the Starting QB our defense was busy giving up 20 + points a game...and nobody was saying anything about it.

From the day Aaron Brooks started his first game until now this team has scored enough points to win. Brooks isn\'t perfect. I\'m not saying it...never have...but Brooks isn\'t the issue.

Funny how people speak about all these \"weapons\" Brooks doesn\'t take full advantage of. How many times did the Saints starting linup include Horn, Pathon, and Stallworth last year...AT THE SAME TIME??? Too many generalizations and not enough FACT. You focus on the team\'s record and blame it on a QB who\'s numbers are generally as good as anybody\'s and ignore the defense giving up 20+ points a game when you have an agenda.

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Show me where Gator or I ever said that defense wasn\'t a major concern. Show me where I ever said that Brooks was MORE of a concern. (I won\'t speak for 08 or BrooksMustGo, but...)

Seriously, you guys this that if we say Brooks had a bad game that translates into it\'s Brooks\' fault we lost the game.

If we criticize Brooks in general than we\'re saying that he is THE problem with the team. I\'ve never said that and I continue to feel that way.

Can you understand that saying \"Brooks didn\'t play well\" is a mutually exclusive thought from \"it\'s Brooks\' fault we lost?\" After all this time I\'d think you\'d learn not to polarize. I mean, when Brooks plays well and you two jump on here to rave about it do you see me chiming in with - How can you possibly this Brooks won that game by himself? Our D only allowed 10 points! No, b/c I understand the difference between making a comment about a player and suggesting that he is the root of all good or evil.

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

I\'ve always thought it interesting that some of you were more interested in griping about Brooks than about the real issues with the team. It\'s that simple. Whodat...you know I love ya, but you have used every angle known to man in an attempt to show Aaron Brooks isn\'t capable...first of being an NFL QB, then of being a QB in our \"system\", then of not being worthy of his Salary. You\'ve focused your general displeasure with Brooks on something new as quick as he\'s forced you to. Not that I care, but I know for certain you\'ve put the ills of the team squarly on his shoulders...even when the defense couldn\'t stop a team full of grandparents on vacation.

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Better question: what happens to the poor goat if he loses? :o

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

1. Never did I say AB couldn\'t be an NFL QB or a Starter with the exception of when he was hurt. In that case, yes, I did say that he shouldn\'t be our starter. I have argued that the Saints needed an open and fair QB competition. Think about this - Delhomme\'s numbers last year weren\'t all that far off from Brooks\' numbers in 2001. Imagine what will happen to Delhomme if he is given the same free pass, attention, training, QB coaches, access to former greats, and all of the other things AB has received from the Saints. C\'mon Saintfan - even you have said Delhomme should have gotten a fair shake when Haslett came in. I\'m not suggesting that Delhomme was definitively better that Brooks or Blake in 2000, but he certainly wasn\'t given much of a chance to show whether or not he was. Once Brooks took over, he was the guy... period. I think any position should be open and up for grabs by the best player available. I\'m not suggesting that when a guy\'s in a slump or has a bad game that he be yanked, but there needs to be competition for positions. That didn\'t happen at the QB position after Brooks took over.

2. Brooks WAS NOT deserving of his TOP FIVE QB in the league salary when he got it. He is YET to finish in the top five EVER in his career (composite). Salaries have gone up and he is probably now a lot clser to deserving of that money. If Delhomme is getting $38 now, Brooks is definitely deserving of $36 - however that wasn\'t always the case.

3. I\'mnot suggesting that I\'ve supported AB, but you guys continue to suggest that I simply have some hateful grudge against him. I DEFENDED the guy last season. I mean, I said he can and should be a Pro Bowler this year. I said I think he will have a great year. And with all this, I obviously still hate the guy. OK - you love Jim Haslett and think he is THE reason that the Saints have won ANY games in the last 4 years. Sound ridiculuos? Well I\'m just polarizing some old comments you made about the guy to the same extreme to which you polarize my commetns about Brooks.

C\'mon Saintfan, I love ya, but you\'ve done everything to prove Jim Haslett is the best coach in football.

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

When does Brooks holdout again and want to renegotiate his renegotiated contract ??

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Yes, you have argued that. You\'ve also argued a thousand other things...and 996 of \'em were from an anti-Brooks angle. Deny that if you will, but it\'s the truth and you know it is. The thing is that there is no evidence that there wasn\'t a \"fair\" QB competition. Haz wasn\'t the first guy to overlook Jake. Bill Parcells did...TWICE. Mike Ditka cut him. Jake couldn\'t crack the starting lineup in NFLE. Jake\'s 38 Million dollar deal is backloaded...likely because the Panthers aren\'t sure either. I don\'t say these things in an attempt to drag Jake down. I say these things because with you EVERYTHING is an indictment against Haz. And before you get started, let me be clear. I\'m NOT saying Haz is the greatest coach of all time or even near it, but I WILL say his numbers, when set side by side with Bellichik or Parcells or some of the others widely considered to be \"quality\" coaches, Jim\'s numbers DO NOT suffer.

The players that speak poorly of Haz are the players who left here because of personal issues or contract issues or simply because they\'re jerks. Joe Horn was pissed, sure he was, but lets consider why before we start blaming the coach for the sake of having someone to blame.

You think Brooks is worth his Contract now, but he wasn\'t worth it then? Maybe we should have waited so he would have cost us more? Do you realize the biggest issue you have with Brooks is his contract? Do you realize that wasn\'t always the case? Can you see and admit that Brooks is a fairly solid QB and his contract is nearly the only thing left you have to complain about? C\'mon man.

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

WhoDat --

Look, saintfan is right. You do have valid arguements a lot of times. But, you can\'t simply point to the valid agruements you have made and say: \"See, I\'m fair\".

You know I have admited I\'m unfair when it comes to talking about Jake. And I admit I go over the top in defending Brooks. But, I will also level with you about Brooks so long as I don\'t have to deal with the BS.... ;)

You on the other hand, portray yourself as being the most fair and balanced guy on here and refuse to admit you are biased when it comes to certain things.

To point out what saintfan has already pointed out to you. You change your arguement against Brooks as fast as he proves you wrong. First it was:

1. Completion Percentage: This clearly showed you that he was not one of the best QB\'s in the league. But, Elway never cracked the 60% completion mark until his 11th year. We understand it would be better if Brooks completed a higher % of his passes. But, you are just using completion percentage for.......well........because it was handy and you wanted to convice us that Brooks was no good. I call that REACHING and that\'s being kind.

2. Not right for the West Coast Offense: I don\'t know how many times we had to hear this from you and a bunch of others. You were completely convinced of this and tried to convince us of it for a LONG time. We have never run a West Coast Offense and McCarthy said we had NEVER run a West Coast Offense. McCarthy\'s offense sends the receievers on much deeper routes than a West Coast Offense and it takes longer for the patterns to develop. Which might explain why Brooks isn\'t making those quick short throws like you tried to convice us he needs to be doing. You were incorrect, WhoDat.

3. Brooks\' Contract: Doesn\'t deserve it. Hasn\'t produced to his top 5 salary. But, players are paid on potential all the time. I can name 100-guys in the NFL that fits your criteria of undeserving. But, Brooks is unique in your mind. I call that BIASED.

You call it what you want, WhoDat. Maybe you\'re just trying to point out to us ALL the flaws Brooks has. I don\'t know? Just seems you have always been very biased to me.

Now, you have been doing better as of late. We\'re not so different, WhoDat......LMAO

[Edited on 25/6/2004 by GumboBC]

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

First of all, I never said that my opinion of Brooks hasn\'t changed? In fact, many times I\'ve said I liked the guy a lot in 2000 and 2001. However, your facts aren\'t quite clear. I said that Brooks was not really fit for our offense even in 2001 when I saw him becoming a very good QB. Even then, when I supported the guy, I said he wasn\'t efficient and effective and not fit for the West Coast. You know what? HE\'S NOT. Why do you think the offense changed?!?! Two reason. 1. AARON BROOKS. 2. Deuce McAllister.

You guys act like it is a coincidence. We DID run the west coast. That has changed b/c Brooks COULD NOT make the types of throws, reads, etc. he needed to be successful in the system - so Papa Haslett changed the system.

Next, I was outraged with Brooks\' comments and actions regarding his contract when it happened. That\'s nothing new. I\'ve been upset for years over that. He was undeserving if you ask me.

It\'s amazing that you guys continue to attack after I make comments like:

\" I DEFENDED the guy last season. I mean, I said he can and should be a Pro Bowler this year. I said I think he will have a great year. \"

I mean, I have an anti-Brooks anti-Haslett agenda? OK. Fine. You guys have a pro-Brooks pro-Haslett agenda where you support the two no matter how poorly they perform and regardless of how stupid their decisions are. Every angle you two take is one that seeks to cast the two in a better light and make them into saviors that they clearly are not. Fair?

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

See, there you go again. First, McCarthy said we have NEVER run the west coast offense. Now, you can call McCarthy a liar, but I\'ve watched the offense under McCarthy from day 1 and it\'s always been the same. As a matter of fact, they went out and got guys who fit the system McCarthy wants to run which simulates the Rams offense more than the 49\'ers offense.

Have you ever looked at Green Bays offense with Favre. Looks a helluva lot different than any west coast offense I\'ve ever see. West Coast in name only, brother.

Now you want me to believe that McCarthy has switched to an offense that he has no experience running and the only offense he has ever known. That\'s some kinda statement, WhoDat. But, it does help you when you don\'t want to admit you were mistaken.

[Edited on 25/6/2004 by GumboBC]

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Billy, if you cannot see the differences between the offense when Blake was QB and Williams was RB versus the offense in say 2002 then you\'ve got other problems. Take the goggles off my friend. Or put the Tang down.

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

I might have other problems, WhoDat. But, I DO know what a west coast offense is and I do recognize when we don\'t run one.

Will you kindly explain to me HOW our offense is different?

Do the receivers run different routes?
Do the tightends run different routes?
Do the offensive linemen block differently?
Does the runningback play differently?

What\'s changed, WhoDat? What\'s changed is the players, not the scheme.

The only real thing that\'s changed is we got rid of Ricky Williams and got Deuce who better fits the system and got receivers that can strecth the field like McCarty and Haslett wanted to begin with. Can ya hear me? How \'bout now??? :P

GumboBC salutes WhoDat
 

Hehehe - Billy Strike Again!!!

The Saints do not and have never run the West Coast.

Oops.

From CNNSI:
First, new coach Jim Haslett hired Packers quarterbacks coach Mike McCarthy to revamp the offense. McCarthy is only 36, but he\'s well-schooled in a run-oriented version of the West Coast offense (think Broncos, Chiefs and Titans).

From NFL.com about Deuce in 2001
The trade immediately made McAllister, the club\'s No. 1 pick in 2001, the focal point of the Saints\' offense. It also ushered in a new era for the New Orleans attack. A ball-control unit once built around Williams\' power now features the speed and big-play potential of McAllister, who will be used as both a runner and a receiver.

It was the 232-pound McAllister\'s ability to turn any touch into a touchdown that sold the Saints on him and made Williams expendable. In the Saints\' version of the West Coast offense, McAllister is an every-down weapon. His polished pass-catching skills make him like an extra wide receiver and the coaching staff aims to exploit the linebackers and safeties who end up chasing McAllister in coverage.
http://www.nfl.com/insider/story/5701609


Or

FROM MCCARTHY\'S BIO ON THE SAINTS WEB SITE RIGHT NOW!!
Though the Saints\' history was once filled with teams dominated by their defenses, McCarthy has led an offensive revival in New Orleans. He has done so by relying on an uncompromising attention to detail, skilled planning and a dedication to the principles of the West Coast offensive system.
http://neworleanssaints.com/coachbio.cfm?coachid=31