Question of the week: Strive for playoffs or fold for draft

JKool · 12-02-2004, 01:12 PM

Well, that was a lot to read.

First, Whodi, I did read your post; I read all of your posts. I consider you a smart guy and a good poster. That said, I think you and I had this very debate several weeks ago and argued it to an impasse (but I could be wrong abou that, it may have been someone else).

Second, I think BnB, sumed it up well right here, so I don\'t have too much more to say about the perspective point (game to game versus season). I think I\'m with BnB here - I\'m in the game to game camp right now.

Third, I think that the most interesting conclusion was come to in this thread, so tell me if you think I got it right:

\"Just lose baby\" is actually a bad strategy for several reasons (demoralization, pride, jobs on the line, etc.); however, there is nothing with a \"try new things\" strategy.

Well, that\'s shocking. If you\'re losing, you should try some new stuff. I agree.

For all you \"realists\" out there, how realistic do you think it is that this coaching staff and these players will happily do things like give starting roles to backups and unknowns. This will make our coaches and starters look like morons. These are professional people who are going to go out and do there job to the best of their ability and do it with pride (at least in most cases - and, as Danno correctly points out, we wouldn\'t want the guys who aren\'t going to do that on our team anyway). Do you think that Duece, Joe, Charles Grant or any of these guys want to ride the bench while some back bencher does their job? Do you really think that won\'t effect how they feel (about the team, the organization, themselves, etc.)? Bah.

So, let me say this. I\'m in favor of trying new things. I just don\'t think that we\'ll see it happen. I also think there are some new things that can be tried, and other things that will actually harm whatever is left here that is good. So, be careful in what you mean when you say \"try new things.\"

Fourth, this stuff about the draft. I agree that there are some players that barring injury or circumstance are pretty well guaranteed to be studs. They are usually found in picks 1-10 or thereabouts. However, there are no certainties. A good player may hold out or ask to be traded if he is sure he\'s going to a loser team with loser players and a history of losing on purpose. Furthermore, stud players can get hurt, quit, and so on.

The draft is a craps shoot, it is. FA, however, isn\'t exactly perfectly safe either, but at least in FA you have NFL experience to look at, a serious advantage over the draft where players haven\'t played a single snap.

What\'s my point? Well, I think that playing for a draft pick is a craps shoot at best. Also, what player THIS YEAR will care who we draft NEXT YEAR, what coach, what owner? It is only fans who ask these questions. Furthermore, even if we do lose out, it isn\'t clear to me that we\'ll get a top five pick. Do you really think that fans of the other teams in our position aren\'t suggesting they lose out too?

There are two unassessable probabilities here: (1) whether our pick will pan out for reasons foreseeable or unforeseeable, and (2) what pick we\'ll get, even if we lose out.

Tack that on to other problems (demoraliztion, professionalism, etc.), and I don\'t see the strength of the argument for the \"just lose baby\" strategy.

saintswhodi · 12-02-2004, 01:13 PM

BNB, I did make sweeping generalizations in what I was saying, but I am so damn frustrated it is unreal. And honestly, I am scared too. Scared somehow someway Haslett will stay. Scared we will muddle through ANOTHER season. Scared we will bungle the draft again. Scared we will miss our need in the draft again. Most of all, scared that I will enter next season with the same feeling as this one, with a lack of hope. A new coach and a high draft pick gives me hope. IT will have me excited about the upcoming season. Right now I am scared that will slip away. Sorry about the generalizations.

BlackandBlue · 12-02-2004, 01:34 PM

When you come upon a stray dog, you can always tell if that animal has been abused in the past, by how he will flinch when you raise your hand, regardless if all you are doing is petting him.
Nothing wrong with being scared, we\'re that dog, and the Saints\' organization is the abuser. Maybe they\'ve changed their ways and don\'t abuse us as fans any longer, but we\'re always going to flinch, until we\'re 100% certain that the abuse (losing) is no longer there. How can you not be, for me it\'s been roughly 26 years of it.
Patterns are a trait of the NFL, and I see patterns developing around the current coaching staff, that lead me to believe a change is in our near future. Too many grumblings, the rim shot from the owner after the Bronco\'s game...too much is circulating for me to believe that at the very least, we\'ll see a new offensive and defensive coordinator next year. It\'s hard to justify not doing anything with all the activity going on around this team. That being said, I still believe that this team\'s talents are being underutilized in the current scheme, so to me, a coaching change will have a greater effect as to the overall play, than where we pick in this upcoming draft. Not to say that I don\'t think Derrick Johnson isn\'t an impact player, he appears, to me at least, to be LT reincarnated. Do we have a definite need at linebacker? Absolutely, and he would start as a rookie, no question. But I still believe that we have talent on this team, and I think that if we hire the right person for the coaching positions that are left vacant after this season, we\'ll have someone that can boost those talents at multiple positions, rather than drafting to bolster one.

saintswhodi · 12-02-2004, 05:46 PM

JKool, would you call Denny Green a moron for starting a 7th round rookie and Shaun King when his team wa sin a playoff hunt? I think most would agree Denny Green is no moron. Neither is Tom Coughlin, who replaced Kurt Warner when his team was over .500. Sometimes you gotta see what you got. That being said, there are no replacement for Deuce or Joe or LeCharles on the team, they will never ride the bench. But surely Devery can get in as the 3rd wide receiver, surely Stinchcomb can try right tackle, surely Leisle can try the DT spot. So they have no relevance to the \"try new guys\" argument cause they are stars, doing their jobs I think we all agree, and have no backups to worry about. Plus they are the few on the team who can actually play for the Pro Bowl. So no they would not be benched.

BNB, I guess that is the exact mentality I have. I have been burned too many times, and it has been worse these past 4 years cause the talent is there. The expectations are there. The ability is there. And it is just not happening. At least when they were 3-13, you could point to MANY reasons, lack of overall talent being the most glaring. But we have that talent now, and have for years. And we \"pretend\" to be winners here and there but ALWAYS suffer major letdowns when it looks like we have finally got it together.

This being said, I will still be of the just lose family for the rest of this season, but I respect the fact that many of you will not be members of that fraternity. Kudos to you. I do want us to win the Dallas game though cause I will be there, and I don\'t wanna have to pull my brown paper bag out.

spkb25 · 12-02-2004, 06:02 PM

i would never say quit. if you have a chance keep going. you never know. i dont think you ever loose on purpose. but i wouldnt want to see us win like our last three games for no reason and end up like 12 spots further down. but thats me. i dont play for the team. if i played for the team i would try to win every week. isnt that just a mans nature. so different from women. we live to compete

JKool · 12-02-2004, 06:26 PM

Whodi,

Good points, as always.

However, I\'m not following you now. Are you in the \"just lose\" camp or the \"just try new things camp\". If you\'re in the just lose camp (as you suggest), then I think arguments given here work well against you - for example, there is no real way to \"tank\" without instructing some players to lose (and you cannot make use of SFIAH\'s strategy, which seemed to be the best version of \"tanking\"). Do you really think that Joe, Deuce, and Grant will take that well? You said no, and so I take your word for it. Now, what do you mean we won\'t play others over our \"stars\"? If we play our \"stars\", they\'ll try to win (if they don\'t, they\'re not stars). Otherwise, we\'ve got to play guys like Henderson over Horn, someone over Grant (and there are players there, we have plenty of DEs), why not move Bentley over to Guard again and give Jacox a chance at C or Stinchcomb? Aren\'t those the kind of changes that you\'d want - to make sure we tank? Do you think if we make our game plan even more ridiculous that the vetrans and \"stars\" won\'t notice that?

I just don\'t see how you can \"not bench the starters\", thus harming them and us in the long and short run, and still think we can \"lose out\" by trying new things. Either you ask our good players to do things that will increase our chance of losing OR you bench them. Either way, it seems like a harm to me.

I\'m in favor of making some small adjustments to see what happens. Let Henderson play, let Leilse play, but if you get too ridiculous, the \"stars\" will see what is going on - they\'re the ones who are not morons.

saintswhodi · 12-02-2004, 07:27 PM

Once again, how you don\'t have to bench your stars. As I pointed out to Euph, they play their hardest every week and we lose anyway, so that doesn\'t need to change. I would be interested in Bentley moving back to guard and letting someone else try center, that was a good thought. But noone sits all their stars. I am saying, put Devery in as the number two or three receiver. How does that affect Horn? Let Leisle start. Who does that hurt? Let Stinchcomb take over for Riley. HE has the most procedure penalties in the league. Who does that hurt? How do any of these suggestions affect Horn, Deuce, or Bentley? Once again, they are playing now and we are losing, but there are young guys NOT at their positions who would can play. Do you guys think Horn has not been here the last 4 years and played his guts out anyway, win or lose? He always plays his guts out. That\'s not gonna change. But at the same time, by making these moves, I am of the opinion we will continue to lose, thus they go hand in hand. They are not from seperate camps. Putting inexperienced players in as starters to get them experience usually means losses. They are symbiotic and thus agree with where I stand.

I REPEAT. DEUCE, HORN, AND BENTLEY PLAY THEIR HEARTS OUT ANYWAY. THERE IS NOONE TO TAKE THEIR POSITIONS. WE STILL LOSE. THERE IS NO REASON FOR EVERYONE TO BRING THEM UP WHEN IT IS SUGGESTED NEW PLAYERS ARE PUT IN. And Kool, I explained to Euph or someone else I used the term \"tank\" incorrectly.

JKool · 12-02-2004, 08:04 PM

Gottcha bud. Too much other stuff going on. I\'m sorry if I made you repeat yourself (I know I find that pretty annoying myself).

So, your point about \"lose out\" then is just this: try a handful of new things, and we\'ll lose anyway. If this is your idea, then I suppose I have no objection. You ought to not put it this way though: we should lose out. That sounds like actively trying to lose. Your plan seems to be more like this: we\'re going to lose either way, so we should merely try and do a few new things.

I guess, I\'m just confused as to why you present your idea the way you do then? Why mention losing as though it is something we should strive for?

saintswhodi · 12-02-2004, 08:49 PM

Because you did not totally misunderstand me Kool. I am for losing cause there are two players in this draft I want bad for the Saints, and they are in a position to get one. A real true impact defensive player to go with Grant and Will Smith and MM. I am also wanting to see Devery and Stinchcomb and Watson play. SO I want the Saints to lose and I want to see the young guys play. They go together. I do NOT want anyone to activley go to players and suggest sinking the ship. I do want young players we drafted to play to get a chance. Losing will come anyway. So you did not misunderstand me, I just want them both. Just to be clear, I do want the Saints to lose cause A) we are going absolutely nowhere this year, B) we have a couple of shots at true studs in the draft and C) Haslett AND his staff will get the boot, definitely, unequivocaly, and without a shadow of a doubt. I don\'t just want staff gone, I want Haslett gone too. Adios muchacho. Don\'t let the door hit ya.......

subguy · 12-02-2004, 10:54 PM

Yes BnB good points.....and when you can snatch the pebbles from my hand you will have learned.

12-02-2004, 01:12 PM	#51
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Question of the week: Strive for playoffs or fold for draft Well, that was a lot to read. First, Whodi, I did read your post; I read all of your posts. I consider you a smart guy and a good poster. That said, I think you and I had this very debate several weeks ago and argued it to an impasse (but I could be wrong abou that, it may have been someone else). Second, I think BnB, sumed it up well right here, so I don\'t have too much more to say about the perspective point (game to game versus season). I think I\'m with BnB here - I\'m in the game to game camp right now. Third, I think that the most interesting conclusion was come to in this thread, so tell me if you think I got it right: \"Just lose baby\" is actually a bad strategy for several reasons (demoralization, pride, jobs on the line, etc.); however, there is nothing with a \"try new things\" strategy. Well, that\'s shocking. If you\'re losing, you should try some new stuff. I agree. For all you \"realists\" out there, how realistic do you think it is that this coaching staff and these players will happily do things like give starting roles to backups and unknowns. This will make our coaches and starters look like morons. These are professional people who are going to go out and do there job to the best of their ability and do it with pride (at least in most cases - and, as Danno correctly points out, we wouldn\'t want the guys who aren\'t going to do that on our team anyway). Do you think that Duece, Joe, Charles Grant or any of these guys want to ride the bench while some back bencher does their job? Do you really think that won\'t effect how they feel (about the team, the organization, themselves, etc.)? Bah. So, let me say this. I\'m in favor of trying new things. I just don\'t think that we\'ll see it happen. I also think there are some new things that can be tried, and other things that will actually harm whatever is left here that is good. So, be careful in what you mean when you say \"try new things.\" Fourth, this stuff about the draft. I agree that there are some players that barring injury or circumstance are pretty well guaranteed to be studs. They are usually found in picks 1-10 or thereabouts. However, there are no certainties. A good player may hold out or ask to be traded if he is sure he\'s going to a loser team with loser players and a history of losing on purpose. Furthermore, stud players can get hurt, quit, and so on. The draft is a craps shoot, it is. FA, however, isn\'t exactly perfectly safe either, but at least in FA you have NFL experience to look at, a serious advantage over the draft where players haven\'t played a single snap. What\'s my point? Well, I think that playing for a draft pick is a craps shoot at best. Also, what player THIS YEAR will care who we draft NEXT YEAR, what coach, what owner? It is only fans who ask these questions. Furthermore, even if we do lose out, it isn\'t clear to me that we\'ll get a top five pick. Do you really think that fans of the other teams in our position aren\'t suggesting they lose out too? There are two unassessable probabilities here: (1) whether our pick will pan out for reasons foreseeable or unforeseeable, and (2) what pick we\'ll get, even if we lose out. Tack that on to other problems (demoraliztion, professionalism, etc.), and I don\'t see the strength of the argument for the \"just lose baby\" strategy.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

12-02-2004, 01:13 PM	#52
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Question of the week: Strive for playoffs or fold for draft BNB, I did make sweeping generalizations in what I was saying, but I am so damn frustrated it is unreal. And honestly, I am scared too. Scared somehow someway Haslett will stay. Scared we will muddle through ANOTHER season. Scared we will bungle the draft again. Scared we will miss our need in the draft again. Most of all, scared that I will enter next season with the same feeling as this one, with a lack of hope. A new coach and a high draft pick gives me hope. IT will have me excited about the upcoming season. Right now I am scared that will slip away. Sorry about the generalizations.

12-02-2004, 01:34 PM	#53
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Question of the week: Strive for playoffs or fold for draft When you come upon a stray dog, you can always tell if that animal has been abused in the past, by how he will flinch when you raise your hand, regardless if all you are doing is petting him. Nothing wrong with being scared, we\'re that dog, and the Saints\' organization is the abuser. Maybe they\'ve changed their ways and don\'t abuse us as fans any longer, but we\'re always going to flinch, until we\'re 100% certain that the abuse (losing) is no longer there. How can you not be, for me it\'s been roughly 26 years of it. Patterns are a trait of the NFL, and I see patterns developing around the current coaching staff, that lead me to believe a change is in our near future. Too many grumblings, the rim shot from the owner after the Bronco\'s game...too much is circulating for me to believe that at the very least, we\'ll see a new offensive and defensive coordinator next year. It\'s hard to justify not doing anything with all the activity going on around this team. That being said, I still believe that this team\'s talents are being underutilized in the current scheme, so to me, a coaching change will have a greater effect as to the overall play, than where we pick in this upcoming draft. Not to say that I don\'t think Derrick Johnson isn\'t an impact player, he appears, to me at least, to be LT reincarnated. Do we have a definite need at linebacker? Absolutely, and he would start as a rookie, no question. But I still believe that we have talent on this team, and I think that if we hire the right person for the coaching positions that are left vacant after this season, we\'ll have someone that can boost those talents at multiple positions, rather than drafting to bolster one.
	The waiting drove me mad.... I don't want to hear from those that know... Everything has changed, absolutely nothing's changed Eddie is a....draftnik?

12-02-2004, 05:46 PM	#54
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Question of the week: Strive for playoffs or fold for draft JKool, would you call Denny Green a moron for starting a 7th round rookie and Shaun King when his team wa sin a playoff hunt? I think most would agree Denny Green is no moron. Neither is Tom Coughlin, who replaced Kurt Warner when his team was over .500. Sometimes you gotta see what you got. That being said, there are no replacement for Deuce or Joe or LeCharles on the team, they will never ride the bench. But surely Devery can get in as the 3rd wide receiver, surely Stinchcomb can try right tackle, surely Leisle can try the DT spot. So they have no relevance to the \"try new guys\" argument cause they are stars, doing their jobs I think we all agree, and have no backups to worry about. Plus they are the few on the team who can actually play for the Pro Bowl. So no they would not be benched. BNB, I guess that is the exact mentality I have. I have been burned too many times, and it has been worse these past 4 years cause the talent is there. The expectations are there. The ability is there. And it is just not happening. At least when they were 3-13, you could point to MANY reasons, lack of overall talent being the most glaring. But we have that talent now, and have for years. And we \"pretend\" to be winners here and there but ALWAYS suffer major letdowns when it looks like we have finally got it together. This being said, I will still be of the just lose family for the rest of this season, but I respect the fact that many of you will not be members of that fraternity. Kudos to you. I do want us to win the Dallas game though cause I will be there, and I don\'t wanna have to pull my brown paper bag out.

12-02-2004, 06:02 PM	#55
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,101	Question of the week: Strive for playoffs or fold for draft i would never say quit. if you have a chance keep going. you never know. i dont think you ever loose on purpose. but i wouldnt want to see us win like our last three games for no reason and end up like 12 spots further down. but thats me. i dont play for the team. if i played for the team i would try to win every week. isnt that just a mans nature. so different from women. we live to compete

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

12-02-2004, 06:26 PM	#56
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Question of the week: Strive for playoffs or fold for draft Whodi, Good points, as always. However, I\'m not following you now. Are you in the \"just lose\" camp or the \"just try new things camp\". If you\'re in the just lose camp (as you suggest), then I think arguments given here work well against you - for example, there is no real way to \"tank\" without instructing some players to lose (and you cannot make use of SFIAH\'s strategy, which seemed to be the best version of \"tanking\"). Do you really think that Joe, Deuce, and Grant will take that well? You said no, and so I take your word for it. Now, what do you mean we won\'t play others over our \"stars\"? If we play our \"stars\", they\'ll try to win (if they don\'t, they\'re not stars). Otherwise, we\'ve got to play guys like Henderson over Horn, someone over Grant (and there are players there, we have plenty of DEs), why not move Bentley over to Guard again and give Jacox a chance at C or Stinchcomb? Aren\'t those the kind of changes that you\'d want - to make sure we tank? Do you think if we make our game plan even more ridiculous that the vetrans and \"stars\" won\'t notice that? I just don\'t see how you can \"not bench the starters\", thus harming them and us in the long and short run, and still think we can \"lose out\" by trying new things. Either you ask our good players to do things that will increase our chance of losing OR you bench them. Either way, it seems like a harm to me. I\'m in favor of making some small adjustments to see what happens. Let Henderson play, let Leilse play, but if you get too ridiculous, the \"stars\" will see what is going on - they\'re the ones who are not morons.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

12-02-2004, 07:27 PM	#57
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Question of the week: Strive for playoffs or fold for draft Once again, how you don\'t have to bench your stars. As I pointed out to Euph, they play their hardest every week and we lose anyway, so that doesn\'t need to change. I would be interested in Bentley moving back to guard and letting someone else try center, that was a good thought. But noone sits all their stars. I am saying, put Devery in as the number two or three receiver. How does that affect Horn? Let Leisle start. Who does that hurt? Let Stinchcomb take over for Riley. HE has the most procedure penalties in the league. Who does that hurt? How do any of these suggestions affect Horn, Deuce, or Bentley? Once again, they are playing now and we are losing, but there are young guys NOT at their positions who would can play. Do you guys think Horn has not been here the last 4 years and played his guts out anyway, win or lose? He always plays his guts out. That\'s not gonna change. But at the same time, by making these moves, I am of the opinion we will continue to lose, thus they go hand in hand. They are not from seperate camps. Putting inexperienced players in as starters to get them experience usually means losses. They are symbiotic and thus agree with where I stand. I REPEAT. DEUCE, HORN, AND BENTLEY PLAY THEIR HEARTS OUT ANYWAY. THERE IS NOONE TO TAKE THEIR POSITIONS. WE STILL LOSE. THERE IS NO REASON FOR EVERYONE TO BRING THEM UP WHEN IT IS SUGGESTED NEW PLAYERS ARE PUT IN. And Kool, I explained to Euph or someone else I used the term \"tank\" incorrectly.

12-02-2004, 08:04 PM	#58
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Question of the week: Strive for playoffs or fold for draft Gottcha bud. Too much other stuff going on. I\'m sorry if I made you repeat yourself (I know I find that pretty annoying myself). So, your point about \"lose out\" then is just this: try a handful of new things, and we\'ll lose anyway. If this is your idea, then I suppose I have no objection. You ought to not put it this way though: we should lose out. That sounds like actively trying to lose. Your plan seems to be more like this: we\'re going to lose either way, so we should merely try and do a few new things. I guess, I\'m just confused as to why you present your idea the way you do then? Why mention losing as though it is something we should strive for?
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

12-02-2004, 08:49 PM	#59
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Question of the week: Strive for playoffs or fold for draft Because you did not totally misunderstand me Kool. I am for losing cause there are two players in this draft I want bad for the Saints, and they are in a position to get one. A real true impact defensive player to go with Grant and Will Smith and MM. I am also wanting to see Devery and Stinchcomb and Watson play. SO I want the Saints to lose and I want to see the young guys play. They go together. I do NOT want anyone to activley go to players and suggest sinking the ship. I do want young players we drafted to play to get a chance. Losing will come anyway. So you did not misunderstand me, I just want them both. Just to be clear, I do want the Saints to lose cause A) we are going absolutely nowhere this year, B) we have a couple of shots at true studs in the draft and C) Haslett AND his staff will get the boot, definitely, unequivocaly, and without a shadow of a doubt. I don\'t just want staff gone, I want Haslett gone too. Adios muchacho. Don\'t let the door hit ya.......

12-02-2004, 10:54 PM	#60
subguy 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: FL Posts: 2,096	Question of the week: Strive for playoffs or fold for draft Yes BnB good points.....and when you can snatch the pebbles from my hand you will have learned.