JKool

Nice post WhoDat. I\'m not sure whether to applaud or cry - probably, I\'ll just do both.

Either way, three things:

(1) Billy, why isn\'t Rogers (WLB) a proven player. He is solid, has good experience, and is by no means a rookie. I think I agree that Bellamy and Ambrose are question marks if they are asked to do too much, but I think both are solid role players if not starters.

(2) WhoDat, I always wonder about these \"historical\" arguments. It seems that there is trend x, where x usually has something to do with W/L; y usually follows from x (e.g. SB victors tend to come from teams that were middle of the pack the year before); given that trend x, we should expect y. It seems to me that these arguments very much depend on three things: (1) what x is, (2) how W/L has anything to do with x, and (3) the actual reasons that x is connected to y. While I agree with your optimism, do you think that the fact that we have a few features of SB victors from the past few years, we have reason to believe that we have a good shot? Knowing you, I suspect that there are several much better arguments underwriting this one; just curious.

(3) I have a good feeling about Craft, Watson, and Sully. I still also believe we will trade for another corner - offerring one of our WRs (we\'ll have to cut one or two of them anyway). I have a very bad feeling about Hodge and Allen - I don\'t think either will cut it. I hope that one of Watson or Cie will be able to play that last spot, but I think this will be one of our weaknesses.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

saintz08

I myself am optimistic too , for the up and coming season .

I figure with a weak secondary , rookie linebackers , fumbalaya under center and an unproven blocker for Deuce . The additional problems in funding the Saints with the state , about the beginning of the traditional December slide , season ticket holders are gonna hang Hasbeen from the Super Dome rafters .....

frankeefrank

Another reason for optimism...

No one can be a loser for 37 straight years!

Can they?

St.Shrume

FrankeeFrank wrote:
__________________________________________________
\"Another reason for optimism...

No one can be a loser for 37 straight years!

Can they?\"

___________________________________________________________

Umm....how long have you been a Saints fan? Questions like that scare me
please.... If there is a team that can, it\'s the Saints (or Cubs)

But in all seriousness, i can\'t see how we can do too bad this year. Ofcourse, the Saints are artists, creative geniuses (if i may) at finding ways to lose and break your heart. But this year has some magic to it, no doubt.

i\'m glad we are picked to be 3rd or 4th in our division. Less pressure.

I think it depends on our division. i think our division is the toughest one in the NFC by far, we\'ve represented the NFC in every Superbowl since the 4 divisions were created (okay! only 2 superbowls), and still this division is not taken seriously.

The inter-division games will be VERY important. We win those, we\'ll be fine.

WhoDat

Ah Granola Boy, let me educate.

You\'re right, there is a difference between CAUSALITY and CORRELATION. The talk of the \"historical trends\", like teams coming from the middle of the pack with young coaches, blah blah blah, that\'s a correlation. The trend shows not necessarily that those attributes will directly lead to the Super Bowl, but sharing those characteristics certainly doesn\'t hurt.

Then there is Causality. Having a good defense does CAUSE a team to be a contender. Having a great RB, a QB capable of going to the SB, two strong lines, and WRs that can torch any field does lead to success in this league.

Finally, there\'s the other \"qualitative\" causal issues to consider. Being a middle of the pack team for a few years may motivate players to win. That desire to prove something can effect focus and desire. It may cause teams, especially early on, to underestimate or misjudge a team (which can lead to some early wins that we know will matter later).

The issue here is that, now more than ever, the Saints share a lot of both correlated and causal characteristics with recent SB teams. While that certainly doesn\'t mean that they\'ll get there, at least this year I\'ve got SOME reason to believe that they can and just may.

[Edited on 8/7/2004 by WhoDat]

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


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

JKool

Ah Ha! There is an argument I can agree with. Nicely put, WhoDat.

WhoDat

I think that you only question me to get under my skin J - doesn\'t that violate some Ordinance of Granolaton, or a federal law of Tree Huggaria?

BrooksMustGo

Let\'s not let our optimism get the better of our good sense. When a guy like Detiller projects 8-8, then you have to take that seriously. There are too many questions about this team.

It is possible that all these players could come together and gel into an elite football team?
Yes.

Is it probable?
No. It seems a lot more likely that our rookies will look like rookies out on the field.

WhoDat

BMG, I won\'t argue that at all. Unlike some people on this board, I won\'t be surprised if the Saint finish around .500. I definitely see the question marks on D-line, LB, and in the secondary. I know Venturi puts the team at a disadvantage. I agree that the WRs have to prove themselves again and that Brooks is walking a fin line. I agree that if Deuce gets hurt the season could well be cooked and that McCarthy\'s play calling needs to improve. I know that Al Everest needs to learn to run a middle wedge and that Haslett just hasn\'t shown he can put a disciplined team capable of playing to potential out on the field. I agree with Mike when he says that the team didn\'t do a ton in the off-season and that there is still much to be proven.


However, unlike last year, I see our division rivals staying the same or regressing. I see just far too much talent, and I\'m only suggesting that the Aint\'s are going to be 2 or maybe 3 games better. No doubt, they could be 2 or 3 worse.

At this point, without having seen or heard anything in pads, with no injuries and no preseason games played, all I have is what\'s on paper and my gut feeling. Maybe me guts will turn out to have sh-t for brains, but I think this team will get better. There is no reason for them not to - even more reason to think Haslett had better do it or else.

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


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

saintz08

Vick has something to prove and early words out of Atlanta are the Birds are lean and mean and ready to go . Panthers give the Saints a hard time every game and now they have a QB who turns it up a notch for them . Bucs are clueless at all angles .

Early prediction

1. Falcons
2. Panthers
3. Saints
4. Bucs

For Hasbeens traditional December slide , the league served it up and made it more interesting . December the Saints play the Panthers twice , the Cowboys and the Bucs and Birds .....Nothing like losing to divisional opponets when trying to make the play offs .....

[Edited on 9/7/2004 by saintz08]

\"Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn\'t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed.\" - George S. Patton
On another note, I\'ll take a bite of that crow 08. - Saintfan
Brooks is a moron!! - Halo