New Member on the Block

Danno · 06-24-2004, 04:41 PM

It\'s not about being negative, its about calling it like it is and not how you or I would like it to be. Ya know, the truth, not a bubble blowing/rainbow catching fabrications are what I spread here.

I have no problem with that. Its when y\'all call it like it AIN\'T and try to pass off negative agenda driven drivel as realism that irritates me.

But who\'s to say it isn\'t the individual poster but the scheme of the post that determine optimism/pessimism.
I say its the individual poster, not the posting scheme.

[Edited on 24/6/2004 by Danno]

WhoDat · 06-24-2004, 04:47 PM

I have no problem with that. Its when y\'all call it like it AIN\'T and try to pass off negative agenda driven drivel as realism that irritates me.

You mean like when Gator says that the Saints are going to be 9-7, and then I say 8-8 or 9-7 and then they end up 8-8??? Is that the type of \"negative agenda driven drivel\" you\'re talking about? As compared to the realistic and unbiased 13-3 predictions certain members of this board made?? Just want to clarify.

GumboBC · 06-24-2004, 05:04 PM

It\'s not about being negative, its about calling it like it is and not how you or I would like it to be. Ya know, the truth, not a bubble blowing/rainbow catching fabrications are what I spread here.

I have no problem with that. Its when y\'all call it like it AIN\'T and try to pass off negative agenda driven drivel as realism that irritates me.

But who\'s to say it isn\'t the individual poster but the scheme of the post that determine optimism/pessimism.
I say its the individual poster, not the posting scheme.

Oh, that was classic, Danno. It\'s not the posting scheme that\'s responsible.It\'s the guy posting that trash. Although we do have a lot of \"schemers\" on this board.

Anyone want to talk about how Brooks doesn\'t fit in our west coast offense?

Sarsippius · 06-24-2004, 05:04 PM

Sunshiner or not, I will say this - I have never completely warmed up to Haslett. His coaching technique the first couple years were a lot like watching Horn pull out the cell phone - sure it\'s entertaining for a bit, but doesn\'t really belong on the field. Last year\'s kinder, gentler Haslett was painful to watch during those games when we couldn\'t get anything going and nothing was being done about it. I wouldn\'t have been upset if they pulled the plug on his contract, and if with all the talent ammassed this year we still dont make a playoff run, I will help lead the charge calling for it.

Delhomme was a solid backup and a great pickup for Carolina, though I believe you are fooling yourself if you think even today after the Super Bowl run that Carolina would choose him over Brooks if both were available and not under contract. He is a great person with a square head on his shoulders who will do well in this league much like a Jim Kelly, who I bet never had a day in his career go by he didn\'t wish he had the talent and abilities of Marino, Elway, or Montana. I will give it to Delhomme for his playoff performances, and had Davis and the defense stepped up as they did during the regular season, they would all have rings.

Fumbles are like dropped passes. They are mental and contagious. Once you get it in your head that the first thing you have to worry about is not dropping the ball, it happens even more often. Despite the numbers that Brook\'s put up last year, his fumbles did indeed cost us games, though I have no doubt those will be missing from he repetoire this year. Had he thrown interceptions, there might be cause for concern as they show misjudgment or the inability to read coverage whereas fumbles can be fixed - just ask Beerman.

Danno · 06-24-2004, 05:06 PM

I have no problem with that. Its when y\'all call it like it AIN\'T and try to pass off negative agenda driven drivel as realism that irritates me.

You mean like when Gator says that the Saints are going to be 9-7, and then I say 8-8 or 9-7 and then they end up 8-8??? Is that the type of \"negative agenda driven drivel\" you\'re talking about? As compared to the realistic and unbiased 13-3 predictions certain members of this board made?? Just want to clarify.

No thats not what I\'m talking about. Who said 13-3 and did they clarify it with a statement like \"if we can stay healthy\"?

Its when someone says Haslett and Loomis can\'t bring talent into this organization, and then 2 topics later state that there\'s too much talent on this team for Haz to be 8-8.

Its looking at the negative of every issue and ramming down everyone\'s throat.

Its taking an article about Haz getting tougher on some players and it being posted as \"Hopeless Haz Searches for Clues, Again and Again\"

Some of us see the glass half full, some see it half empty, the wrong color, the wrong size, the wrong shape, the wrong temperature and the wrong liquid.

JKool · 06-24-2004, 09:35 PM

I think that this whole \"sides\" thing is a bit wacky (though, generally, it is obvious which side I fall one).

The thing is, as usual, we all want to understand the game better - it is true that some people seem to see rainbows more often than other and others see webs and bugs more often. At the end of the day, both sides say ridiculous things - that is mostly to get a rise out of the other side (cough cough... Brooks is the best QB to ever where B&G)

.

I\'m excited about the new class too though. Hopefully new light will be shed on old debates.

PS - I know some people who\'ve said things like this: \"Haz can\'t win in December and never will\", then retracted that for a much more reasonable position. I don\'t see how refining your view is bad?

JKool · 06-25-2004, 02:57 AM

HALF FULL, YOU MEAN... :P :P :P :P :P :P

Danno · 06-25-2004, 08:11 AM

Has Jim Haslett and Mickey Loomis had more success than the guy Benson canned.

Why is he still unemployed ma man?
I can\'t help it that I\'m a truth addict.

I say no. Horn, AB, Deuce, Stallworth, Grant and who else that is the heart of this team were chosen not by Haslett but by a general manger, and the best one besides Jim Finks might I add.

Laughable. You think Haz had no input? How about Connell? That was very Jim Finks-ish eh?

It might change, it might not. Thats not being negtive ma man, thats being open minded.

WOW, \"might might not is open minded? I\'m amazed at your philisophycal accumen ma man... well maybe not.

To not consider that possiblity they will lose again because the team seems to folllow the same pattern is being closeminded.

What pattern do they continue to follow. last year they made wholesale changes, this year there aren\'t. Is this part of that openminded maybe/maybe not mentality.

If the fact they don\'t succeed shocks you, it should tell you something. You were off, and you\'re perception is off. And please don\'t post the NFL is just crazy these days or it waa all bad luck. NO, NO, NO. . . It was all your assessment of the team and game. And you were off.

Wow, I said 10-6 with the Seattle game being probably the swing game that decides if we make the playoffs. Man was I way off! You can\'t tell me this team wasn\'t closer to 10-6 than 6-10, unless of course you\'re a close minded individual.

SECOND TOPIC
There is too much talent on the Saints club for the team to finish 9-7 and 8-8 every year. You disagree with that? Wierd. One side of your mouth touts how good they could have been (I\'m quoting you now \" If not for injuries \" they would be 13-3) and I agree they shouldn\'t have been 8-8, yet even that statement is negative to you.

I have no idea what you\'re trying to say.
I said there are some posters here that complain about not winning with all this talent, and then saying how bad Loomis and Haz are at building talent.
And you are not quoting me, ma man. I didn\'t say that. I asked if the person WhoDat was referring to said that. Lets try to keep up.
If someone predicts 10-6 and after game one we lose Deuce, Brooks, Horn, Howard and Thomas for the year and we finish 8-8, are you gonna say I told you we\'d finish 8-8.

Its like you can\'t win with some guys. I guess I should start a Gatorman Salutes Tweeky Thread to get a little less grief from you.

I wasn\'t referring to you in my post, but the pessimism I detest in general.
If you thought I was directing that at you, you need to lighten up and be a little more open-minded ma man.

[Edited on 25/6/2004 by Danno]

GumboBC · 06-25-2004, 09:30 AM

One thing about it, the WhoTang clan was formed long before the sunshine club.

The sunshine club was formed to defeat such exisisting popular logic as:

1. Randy Meuller was the one responsilbe for the Saints success.
But, Haslett was responsible for getting rid of Roaf, Le Roi Glover, and Joe Johson. Yeah, and I got got some ocean front property in Arizona.

2. Az-Zahir Hakim was the one that won the playoff game for the Saints.
Even though Brooks and the offense built a 24-point lead and scored 31-points. I\'m thinking the defense let the Rams back in the game. Hey, but that\'s just my crazy logic.

3. Brooks shouldn\'t be our QB because he\'s not right for McCarthy\'s West Coast Offense.
Even though we\'ve never run the West Coast Offense. McCarthy himself even said so. But, hey, they\'ve read some article on the West Coast offense and it\'s hard to argue with that.

4. Brooks shouldn\'t be our QB because he get\'s paid like a top 5 QB and he\'s not proven to be one.
Yeah, you checked out any of these rookie\'s contracts. At least with Brooks he\'s proven more than some rookie. Other teams can pay based on potential but not our Saints. I suppose we shouldn\'t use our franchise tag every year since no player but Deuce has proven to be a top 5 player and we all know what the frachise tag means. Has anyone heard anyone in the WhoTang clan complaining about Darren Howard\'s contract? No you haven\'t but his name isn\'t Aaron Brooks.

Oh, there\'s plenty more of these \"realist\" FACTS out there. They\'re not being negative. They\'re just \"realists\". :P

So, there you have it folks. The reason a few of us are labeled as \"sunshiners\". Hey, I can stand l little rain. Just not 365 days a year... :P :P

[Edited on 25/6/2004 by GumboBC]

WhoDat · 06-25-2004, 12:52 PM

I said there are some posters here that complain about not winning with all this talent, and then saying how bad Loomis and Haz are at building talent.

OK - I\'ll clarify for you:

There is a lot of talent on this team. To date, much of that talent has not developed as we hoped, and the coaching staff promised. Some people want to blame that on the players and say that their big boys and it\'s up to them. Others think if it were a few isolated incidents that might be the case, but when it\'s team wide it\'s different.

Next, there is a lot of talent on this team. For some time the problem has been on the defensive side of the ball. There are a few issues here. First, it was Has and Co. shipped out good players and moved others from positions where they were successful to positions where they were not. Finally, and maybe most importantly, the same major needs have been clear for about three years and those are the only positions that have not been adequately addressed. For the record, THIS IS MY OPINION.

I understand that you disagree with that Danno, but then why do we continue to need LBs and CBs every offseason? And Gator makes a good point - I\'ll concede, this team has great talent and continues to find and develop even more talente. SO WHY ARE THEY .500 EVERY YEAR? If it\'s not the fault of these very talented players, then whose fault is it? Sorry, I don\'t believe the bad luck excuse - got any others?

C\'mon, tell me again about how each season is different and it was something new and unexpected each year. Yeah, then why hasn\'t Haslett planned for the unexpected yet? It seems other coaches do.

Say what you will - the Saints are one of five teams (i think) that haven\'t made the playoffs in 3 years. This is the most talented team we\'ve ever had - being in that poor company is not acceptible.

06-24-2004, 04:41 PM	#11
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	New Member on the Block It\'s not about being negative, its about calling it like it is and not how you or I would like it to be. Ya know, the truth, not a bubble blowing/rainbow catching fabrications are what I spread here. I have no problem with that. Its when y\'all call it like it AIN\'T and try to pass off negative agenda driven drivel as realism that irritates me. But who\'s to say it isn\'t the individual poster but the scheme of the post that determine optimism/pessimism. I say its the individual poster, not the posting scheme. [Edited on 24/6/2004 by Danno]

06-24-2004, 04:47 PM	#12
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	New Member on the Block I have no problem with that. Its when y\'all call it like it AIN\'T and try to pass off negative agenda driven drivel as realism that irritates me. You mean like when Gator says that the Saints are going to be 9-7, and then I say 8-8 or 9-7 and then they end up 8-8??? Is that the type of \"negative agenda driven drivel\" you\'re talking about? As compared to the realistic and unbiased 13-3 predictions certain members of this board made?? Just want to clarify.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

06-24-2004, 05:04 PM	#13
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	New Member on the Block It\'s not about being negative, its about calling it like it is and not how you or I would like it to be. Ya know, the truth, not a bubble blowing/rainbow catching fabrications are what I spread here. I have no problem with that. Its when y\'all call it like it AIN\'T and try to pass off negative agenda driven drivel as realism that irritates me. But who\'s to say it isn\'t the individual poster but the scheme of the post that determine optimism/pessimism. I say its the individual poster, not the posting scheme. Oh, that was classic, Danno. It\'s not the posting scheme that\'s responsible.It\'s the guy posting that trash. Although we do have a lot of \"schemers\" on this board. Anyone want to talk about how Brooks doesn\'t fit in our west coast offense?
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

06-24-2004, 05:04 PM	#14
Sarsippius Registered Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: New Orleans Posts: 90	New Member on the Block Sunshiner or not, I will say this - I have never completely warmed up to Haslett. His coaching technique the first couple years were a lot like watching Horn pull out the cell phone - sure it\'s entertaining for a bit, but doesn\'t really belong on the field. Last year\'s kinder, gentler Haslett was painful to watch during those games when we couldn\'t get anything going and nothing was being done about it. I wouldn\'t have been upset if they pulled the plug on his contract, and if with all the talent ammassed this year we still dont make a playoff run, I will help lead the charge calling for it. Delhomme was a solid backup and a great pickup for Carolina, though I believe you are fooling yourself if you think even today after the Super Bowl run that Carolina would choose him over Brooks if both were available and not under contract. He is a great person with a square head on his shoulders who will do well in this league much like a Jim Kelly, who I bet never had a day in his career go by he didn\'t wish he had the talent and abilities of Marino, Elway, or Montana. I will give it to Delhomme for his playoff performances, and had Davis and the defense stepped up as they did during the regular season, they would all have rings. Fumbles are like dropped passes. They are mental and contagious. Once you get it in your head that the first thing you have to worry about is not dropping the ball, it happens even more often. Despite the numbers that Brook\'s put up last year, his fumbles did indeed cost us games, though I have no doubt those will be missing from he repetoire this year. Had he thrown interceptions, there might be cause for concern as they show misjudgment or the inability to read coverage whereas fumbles can be fixed - just ask Beerman.
	-Sars <center>http://www.blackandgold.net/site/sig...sunshiners.jpg</center>

06-24-2004, 05:06 PM	#15
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	New Member on the Block I have no problem with that. Its when y\'all call it like it AIN\'T and try to pass off negative agenda driven drivel as realism that irritates me. You mean like when Gator says that the Saints are going to be 9-7, and then I say 8-8 or 9-7 and then they end up 8-8??? Is that the type of \"negative agenda driven drivel\" you\'re talking about? As compared to the realistic and unbiased 13-3 predictions certain members of this board made?? Just want to clarify. No thats not what I\'m talking about. Who said 13-3 and did they clarify it with a statement like \"if we can stay healthy\"? Its when someone says Haslett and Loomis can\'t bring talent into this organization, and then 2 topics later state that there\'s too much talent on this team for Haz to be 8-8. Its looking at the negative of every issue and ramming down everyone\'s throat. Its taking an article about Haz getting tougher on some players and it being posted as \"Hopeless Haz Searches for Clues, Again and Again\" Some of us see the glass half full, some see it half empty, the wrong color, the wrong size, the wrong shape, the wrong temperature and the wrong liquid.

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

06-24-2004, 09:35 PM	#16
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	New Member on the Block I think that this whole \"sides\" thing is a bit wacky (though, generally, it is obvious which side I fall one). The thing is, as usual, we all want to understand the game better - it is true that some people seem to see rainbows more often than other and others see webs and bugs more often. At the end of the day, both sides say ridiculous things - that is mostly to get a rise out of the other side (cough cough... Brooks is the best QB to ever where B&G) . I\'m excited about the new class too though. Hopefully new light will be shed on old debates. PS - I know some people who\'ve said things like this: \"Haz can\'t win in December and never will\", then retracted that for a much more reasonable position. I don\'t see how refining your view is bad?
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

06-25-2004, 02:57 AM	#17
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	New Member on the Block HALF FULL, YOU MEAN... :P :P :P :P :P :P

06-25-2004, 08:11 AM	#18
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	New Member on the Block Has Jim Haslett and Mickey Loomis had more success than the guy Benson canned. Why is he still unemployed ma man? I can\'t help it that I\'m a truth addict. I say no. Horn, AB, Deuce, Stallworth, Grant and who else that is the heart of this team were chosen not by Haslett but by a general manger, and the best one besides Jim Finks might I add. Laughable. You think Haz had no input? How about Connell? That was very Jim Finks-ish eh? It might change, it might not. Thats not being negtive ma man, thats being open minded. WOW, \"might might not is open minded? I\'m amazed at your philisophycal accumen ma man... well maybe not. To not consider that possiblity they will lose again because the team seems to folllow the same pattern is being closeminded. What pattern do they continue to follow. last year they made wholesale changes, this year there aren\'t. Is this part of that openminded maybe/maybe not mentality. If the fact they don\'t succeed shocks you, it should tell you something. You were off, and you\'re perception is off. And please don\'t post the NFL is just crazy these days or it waa all bad luck. NO, NO, NO. . . It was all your assessment of the team and game. And you were off. Wow, I said 10-6 with the Seattle game being probably the swing game that decides if we make the playoffs. Man was I way off! You can\'t tell me this team wasn\'t closer to 10-6 than 6-10, unless of course you\'re a close minded individual. SECOND TOPIC There is too much talent on the Saints club for the team to finish 9-7 and 8-8 every year. You disagree with that? Wierd. One side of your mouth touts how good they could have been (I\'m quoting you now \" If not for injuries \" they would be 13-3) and I agree they shouldn\'t have been 8-8, yet even that statement is negative to you. I have no idea what you\'re trying to say. I said there are some posters here that complain about not winning with all this talent, and then saying how bad Loomis and Haz are at building talent. And you are not quoting me, ma man. I didn\'t say that. I asked if the person WhoDat was referring to said that. Lets try to keep up. If someone predicts 10-6 and after game one we lose Deuce, Brooks, Horn, Howard and Thomas for the year and we finish 8-8, are you gonna say I told you we\'d finish 8-8. Its like you can\'t win with some guys. I guess I should start a Gatorman Salutes Tweeky Thread to get a little less grief from you. I wasn\'t referring to you in my post, but the pessimism I detest in general. If you thought I was directing that at you, you need to lighten up and be a little more open-minded ma man. [Edited on 25/6/2004 by Danno]

06-25-2004, 09:30 AM	#19
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	New Member on the Block One thing about it, the WhoTang clan was formed long before the sunshine club. The sunshine club was formed to defeat such exisisting popular logic as: 1. Randy Meuller was the one responsilbe for the Saints success. But, Haslett was responsible for getting rid of Roaf, Le Roi Glover, and Joe Johson. Yeah, and I got got some ocean front property in Arizona. 2. Az-Zahir Hakim was the one that won the playoff game for the Saints. Even though Brooks and the offense built a 24-point lead and scored 31-points. I\'m thinking the defense let the Rams back in the game. Hey, but that\'s just my crazy logic. 3. Brooks shouldn\'t be our QB because he\'s not right for McCarthy\'s West Coast Offense. Even though we\'ve never run the West Coast Offense. McCarthy himself even said so. But, hey, they\'ve read some article on the West Coast offense and it\'s hard to argue with that. 4. Brooks shouldn\'t be our QB because he get\'s paid like a top 5 QB and he\'s not proven to be one. Yeah, you checked out any of these rookie\'s contracts. At least with Brooks he\'s proven more than some rookie. Other teams can pay based on potential but not our Saints. I suppose we shouldn\'t use our franchise tag every year since no player but Deuce has proven to be a top 5 player and we all know what the frachise tag means. Has anyone heard anyone in the WhoTang clan complaining about Darren Howard\'s contract? No you haven\'t but his name isn\'t Aaron Brooks. Oh, there\'s plenty more of these \"realist\" FACTS out there. They\'re not being negative. They\'re just \"realists\". :P So, there you have it folks. The reason a few of us are labeled as \"sunshiners\". Hey, I can stand l little rain. Just not 365 days a year... :P :P [Edited on 25/6/2004 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

06-25-2004, 12:52 PM	#20
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	New Member on the Block I said there are some posters here that complain about not winning with all this talent, and then saying how bad Loomis and Haz are at building talent. OK - I\'ll clarify for you: There is a lot of talent on this team. To date, much of that talent has not developed as we hoped, and the coaching staff promised. Some people want to blame that on the players and say that their big boys and it\'s up to them. Others think if it were a few isolated incidents that might be the case, but when it\'s team wide it\'s different. Next, there is a lot of talent on this team. For some time the problem has been on the defensive side of the ball. There are a few issues here. First, it was Has and Co. shipped out good players and moved others from positions where they were successful to positions where they were not. Finally, and maybe most importantly, the same major needs have been clear for about three years and those are the only positions that have not been adequately addressed. For the record, THIS IS MY OPINION. I understand that you disagree with that Danno, but then why do we continue to need LBs and CBs every offseason? And Gator makes a good point - I\'ll concede, this team has great talent and continues to find and develop even more talente. SO WHY ARE THEY .500 EVERY YEAR? If it\'s not the fault of these very talented players, then whose fault is it? Sorry, I don\'t believe the bad luck excuse - got any others? C\'mon, tell me again about how each season is different and it was something new and unexpected each year. Yeah, then why hasn\'t Haslett planned for the unexpected yet? It seems other coaches do. Say what you will - the Saints are one of five teams (i think) that haven\'t made the playoffs in 3 years. This is the most talented team we\'ve ever had - being in that poor company is not acceptible.
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.\"