"One Level Removed"

JKool · 06-27-2004, 11:29 AM

Billy, I think we\'ve agreed on this topic for some time now. I was just checking to see to what extent you\'d decided to change your position on this one.

I agree with this:

And you know what? I still will think Haslett can become a successful head coach some where. I would just rather get someone else in here just in case he can\'t because I feel like he has had enough time here.

I think, and I\'m sure someone could show this, that the number of gambles on players the Saints have taken are not too many more or less than other teams. Ruff was a bit of a bust, sure, but how many people thought he was the second coming. Rogers paid off, so that is 50%. T-buck was an asset to our defense (even if he had trouble tackling) - who else was really available to us to fill the S need? Ambrose was playing nickle in ATL; I don\'t think Haz brought him in to start. Hand replaced by Sully - did we win on that? At least we didn\'t lose. Moving Bellamy to SS: priceless. Dale Carter didn\'t look good (EXCEPT when he was healthy and on the field, which wasn\'t very often). At any rate, I\'m having trouble of thinking of these as GAMBLES; they seem more like calculated risks, and ones that weren\'t too bad at that.

I think we ALL agree that Haz\'s biggest weakness is in dealing with troubled players and maintaining discipline. It is my veiw that this sort of thing IS the most difficult thing for a new head coach (espc. when they played some time ago). I think that the ego of an NFL player is GENERALLY getting worse and more difficult to manage. This is not an excuse for Haz, since it is his JOB to get these guys playing as a team (and he has failed most glamourously); however, it is an explanation as to why some of the younger coaches have trouble their first few years.

06-27-2004, 11:29 AM	#1
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	"One Level Removed" Billy, I think we\'ve agreed on this topic for some time now. I was just checking to see to what extent you\'d decided to change your position on this one. I agree with this: And you know what? I still will think Haslett can become a successful head coach some where. I would just rather get someone else in here just in case he can\'t because I feel like he has had enough time here. I think, and I\'m sure someone could show this, that the number of gambles on players the Saints have taken are not too many more or less than other teams. Ruff was a bit of a bust, sure, but how many people thought he was the second coming. Rogers paid off, so that is 50%. T-buck was an asset to our defense (even if he had trouble tackling) - who else was really available to us to fill the S need? Ambrose was playing nickle in ATL; I don\'t think Haz brought him in to start. Hand replaced by Sully - did we win on that? At least we didn\'t lose. Moving Bellamy to SS: priceless. Dale Carter didn\'t look good (EXCEPT when he was healthy and on the field, which wasn\'t very often). At any rate, I\'m having trouble of thinking of these as GAMBLES; they seem more like calculated risks, and ones that weren\'t too bad at that. I think we ALL agree that Haz\'s biggest weakness is in dealing with troubled players and maintaining discipline. It is my veiw that this sort of thing IS the most difficult thing for a new head coach (espc. when they played some time ago). I think that the ego of an NFL player is GENERALLY getting worse and more difficult to manage. This is not an excuse for Haz, since it is his JOB to get these guys playing as a team (and he has failed most glamourously); however, it is an explanation as to why some of the younger coaches have trouble their first few years.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks