Brooks and Saints are losers
 

When I say the Saints are losers, I have history backing me. I do not enjoy making this observation, because I truly have been a huge fan of this team from the beginning. Nobody would be happier than me if somehow this organization could get turned around....and nobody would be happier than me if I could no longer say this. The thing that makes me wonder the most is why this ownership is so tolerant of mediocrity, while other players and coaches from other organizations are always on a much shorter leash. I don\'t pretend to know all the answers, but I feel compelled to ask the questions.

Regarding AB, I feel the same way. Nobody wanted him to become a superstar more than me. After 2000, I was one of his biggest supporters. Then things started changing. First he stopped scrambling, then he started back-pedaling, then throwing ill-adivised passes and interceptions, and last year the fumbles. This year it seems to be a combination of all of the above. I think he has had a fair shake at it, and it just doesn\'t seem to be happening. The funny thing is that I feel that in the right scenario, he probably becomes and all-pro...if he could ever just learn to relax and play. I don\'t think that is going to happen here, and, what is really scary is that it may not be possible for anyone to make it here. Archie couldn\'t, and I think Archie was a pretty talented football player, but , somehow, this organization has always seemed to bring out the worst in it\'s players...and that seems to be the whole problem. Are we truly cursed?

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head, we have talented players and yet most of them do not play talentedly (if that is a word)....maybe there is a curse, i mean, remember game 15 last year vs. Jacksonville, what an amazing play, and then all we needed was an extra point from the sure footed Carney to take it in to overtime, but oh no, wide right and our playoff chances, however slim, GONE.....a curse hmmmm.....i think so.

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

Yeah, there\'s a curse alright. His name is Jim Haslett.

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

Ok, I hate these history arguments. I\'m sure you are all familiar with statistics and independent trials, so I\'ll spare you the details. Losing 30 years ago, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH losing now, NOTHING.

Now, these arguments about the organization make some sense, since it is stable over several seasons at a time. Thus, if we fail to bring in good players, fail to develop them, and so on, OVER A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, then I\'m willing to buy the idea that there is some connection between losing this year and losing the pervious few years when the organization might be the cause of that. I think we have good reason to believe that players aren\'t developing here because of our current coaching staff, but, again, that has nothing to do with our history beyond the tenure of this coaching staft... nothing.

Furthermore, to claim that the ownership is a bigger factor in wins and losses than any set of coaches and players seems to be way off base. In fact, I would be shocked if it were any more than the smallest of factors, but I\'m open to argument on this matter.

With regard to being losers, do you just mean on the score board? Because if that is what you mean, the truth will be determined at the end of the season. Did you mean in some more general way? If so, I haven\'t heard any real argument one way or the other.

Wow, I seem to be pretty peeved these days. I think seeing this thread again and again is starting to get to me.

PS - Nice post RDOX.

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

I am really glad we finally have a thread with an original non-rehashed topic. :bandhead:

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

How can you say that losing thirty years ago has nothing to do with losing now...that\'s pretty much the point of this thread. The Saints are losers now, just as they have been losers always. I mean, have they ever really won anything, besides a playoff game here, or maybe a division championship or two. The fact that they haven\'t even gotten close enough to a Superbowl to get a whiff makes them losers in my book, and AB is currently the loser in the spotlight. He follows a long line of losers before him that have played for this organization, and, unless something changes drastically, he will be followed by a long line of losers.

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

Why did you dig for this thread?

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

LB,

Well, to answer your question, I pretty well said why I thought that in the passage you quoted.

I don\'t think that there is no reason to argue something becuase \"the point of the thread\" goes against it. Do you?

(Point 1)
I\'ll recap though, since you seem to be interested:

Those people who think there is a CAUSAL connection between what happened 30 years ago and what is happening now must say what it is. The only obvious connection is we have the same team name and same owner (I believe). Owners and names have little to do with winning or losing (at least in comparison to who is on the team and who is coaching it). Thus, this team loses for reasons that are (mostly? totally?) causally (since teams all lose in the same way - scoring fewer points than their opponent) unrelated to why a team 30 years ago lost.

(Point 2)
With respect to being losers because they haven\'t won a SB, well, if that is your definition of being a loser then Dan Marino is a loser. Something about that seems right, but something about that seems so wrong to say. There is no real point in arguing against this definition of being a loser, but it is very unintuitive to me to say that Dan is a loser. (Btw it also follows that Michael Jordan is a loser because he never got a whiff of a SB either, even if he was one of the greatest basketball players of all time on your definition.)

BnB,
:shrug:

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

Folks it goes to this. While we are talking history, remember, if you can (most of you were in diapers when this happened) when we got Jim Finks as GM. Finks strongly controlled Jim Mora, who in all honesty, was an unknown. Mora got known real quick, because he didn\'t have to worry about all of the player decisions and mess that Hazlett has to put up with. Finks also had a director of player personnel who was really the head scout, cap man, and overall talent evaluator of the team. All Mora had to do was coach.

History does repeat itself, just in a different city. This time it\'s the city we all hate the most: Atlanta. Rich McKay handles all of the football operations and Baby Mora coaches the team. And that\'s all he does, coach. He doesn\'t have the same type of pressures and chaos that swirls around in the Saints organizaiton, because Rich McKay is doing all of the heavy lifting for him. End result. 10-2.

Benson doesn\'t get it. He needs to hire a FOOTBALL minded GM and LEAVE HIM ALONE. I\'d also suspect that Arnold FieldCow(sp) is in there stirring the pot, and hasn\'t a clue about football operations either. He can hawk tickets though. The reason that LoomBoom is safe is because he doesn\'t cross FieldCow (Benson\'s personal BlowBoy) who wants to be boss of the whole thing, but doesn\'t have a clue about what it takes to run a professional sports franchise.

We\'ve been in the toilet, ever since Finks died. That\'s the curse, Benson didn\'t have sense enough to find a Rich McKay type and leave him alone. Until that happens, we\'re hosed with a 10\" line at 500psi.

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

:rollinglaugh:

Now I don\'t care who you are--that\'s funny.

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

Because the team I have devoted so much time to during my lifetime has sunk to such a low level of ineptness. The best way for me to ventilate my frustration would be to shout from the rooftop at the top of my lungs how bad the Saints suck every time they have a game like last Sunday\'s. But since I can\'t, this is the next best thing. Any more questions...have I broken some rule that I am not aware of.

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

Can I ask a question without having the mod status dangled in front of me?

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

I was serious...I thought your job might be to weed out the negative people. :cool:

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

Nope, we don\'t put any restrictions on that sorta thing here, unlike other boards. Trust me, the people that cross the line find out real quick- but there are so few rules, it makes my job fairly easy.

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

And that\'s why I like this board. I just had a reply banned because I stated a negative opinion about Fumbles on SR.com. This seems to be one of the more intellectual football boards that I have come across.

Personally, I have followed the Saints since their inception, and actually saw the first organized practices of the team back in 67. That makes me suffer from OFS (Old Fart Syndrome), but every year I back this team to the hilt. I was elated when Benson hired Big Mule and Hazlett. I thought that Big Mule was more of a football man than Bill Kuharich and would make more of an impact in the front office. It looked that way the first year, until Blake was hurt, and Hazlett fell in love with Fumbles and speed. He just forgot that with speed, you have to be able to play the game of football also. But, I digress.

I enjoy this board because of the fact that people here actually think before they type, and disagree with both class and intelligence. The moderation is also quite rational. I am not afraid to make a negative post here for fear of getting banned or flamed. This ain\'t the case on the SR.com board.

I also realize that many of you are much younger than I and are participants in something foreign to me called Fantasy Football. It appears that the love of Fumbles\' \"Stats\" comes from playing FF and not following what goes on at the game. I disagree with this, because, having been a coach, I know that there are many intangibles in players and consequently a team, which play into making a winner. \"Great Stats\" don\'t win games. Johnny Unitas was a legend, but he played on a team that usually didn\'t win in Baltimore. Same was true for Bobby Lane, a great coach, sorry human being, with \"great stats\" and a dog of a team in Pittsburg.

\"Great Stats\" are for people who don\'t really understand the game of football. The only \"Great Stat\" that COUNTS is how many W\'s are in the column, period. I honestly don\'t believe that Fumbles can put the W\'s in the Saints, or any other team\'s column. To me he\'s damaged goods, fundamentally unsound, who tends to panic under pressure, and who is looking out for only himself. Montana was quiet, but forceful, because he didn\'t panic, and was fundamentally sound football wise. Farve, Marino, Kilmer, Hebert all had fire and used it to raise production of their teammates. Brooks has none of this. Therefore, we lose.

Brooks and Saints are losers
 

RDOX, I couldn\'t agree with you more. I have tried to argue that point also that wins are the biggest measure of a successful qb, and not how many tds and yards you can rack up once the game is decided. How many tds and yards you get when the game is still in doubt is what counts. I have heard the argument that we were in the Vikes game cause of Erin Brookovich, then I look at Minny\'s D and what Chad Hutchinson did to them for the Bears of all teams, and I think this kind of game from Brooks is more an abnormality than the norm. He can dominate weak defenses, but if you have a semblance of cohesion on your defensive unit, he won\'t show up until you are safely ahead by 21. I mean we can blame the D, and to an extent it is their fault, but how many 3 and outs can a D recover from to start a game? When you put 0 points on the board in the first quarter, AND go 3 and out taking hardly any time off the clock and giving the other team more possessions, how long is a fragile D gonna stand up? I submit our D could be better than Indy\'s, but we put no pressure on the opposing offenses to hang with us cause ours is inept, so they look worse.

Brooks is definitely damages goods. He needs the chance to warm the pine elsewhere. Trade him for a draft pick and take a run at Brees, Garrard, or Mike McMahon and draft another qb in the later rounds. It\'s time for a new identity.