Why are the Saints different

Saint_LB · 01-22-2005, 04:24 PM

Before I get to the point, I would like to say that I applaud everyone in this forum for being able to argue in a civil way...that's what makes this forum special, IMO. Rarely is there any name-calling. I would also like to say that everybody makes valid points, and I don't think there is anyone who is totally right or totally wrong.

My question is this. Why is Hazlett still our coach. Why is AB still our QB. (Not bashing AB, it just so happens that he has been our QB for the last four years.) Why are McCarthy and Venturi still our O and D coordinators. I have been watching professional football for the last forty years or so, and I have never seen a team stay pat for this long without some amount of success. Personally, I think it has a lot to do with our owner, and what is REALLY near and dear to his heart. As long as the money keeps rolling in, why rock the boat. Winning would be just an extra little caviat, as far as he is concerned...and his definiton of a successful franchise is much different than ours, as fans. Can anybody refresh my memory. Has there ever been a team other than us that has stayed pat this long without anything to show for it?

[Edited on 22/1/2005 by Saint_LB]

JKool · 01-22-2005, 05:03 PM

LB, good inquiry.

Here is an initial argument:
If you owned something that made you money fairly consistently day in and day out, but the color of it wasn\'t as pleasing as it could be (it doesn\'t match your shirt or something), wouldn\'t you trade it in for another that was a better color?

That is, if Benson owns a team that is going to make him money when it wins or when it loses, what is he risking to rock the boat? I\'m not buying the idea that the owner of an NFL team could really give a rats that his team wins or loses. Certainly not a guy who calls his team a bunch of Highschoolers. That just doesn\'t sound to me like a guy who is happy with the color of his money making gadget.

Sure, I\'ll agree that Benson is part of the problem in that sometimes he doesn\'t seem to want to dole out some cash for the purpose of change (e.g. buy out Haz\' contract), but as Danno is fond of pointing out, Benson is NOT cheap when it comes to this team.

Perhaps Benson\'s big mistake is coming to like the guys he hired? That sounds plausible. He\'s got a soft spot for Haz, maybe? That is the kind of thing that might make an owner a liability with respect to the team\'s winning or losing, isn\'t it?

Thus, I\'m sympathetic to, though I see little evidence for it, an argument that Benson is soft on his top dogs, psychologically speaking. However, I don\'t see much reason to believe that Benson is happy to have a losing team - he wouldn\'t spend as much as he has on players and so on if he just wanted a loser.

GumboBC · 01-22-2005, 05:05 PM

Very good topic, Saint_LB

First thing first:

I have been watching professional football for the last forty years or so, and I have never seen a team stay pat for this long without some amount of success.

I\'m going to have to disagree with that. In fact, only in recent history have teams fired their coaches within the first few years.

In years past most owners stuck with their coaches for 5 or 6 years even though they were losing.

Here\'s one example:

Tom Landry Record first 5-years.
4 9 1
5 8 1
4 10 0
5 8 1
7 7 0

Landry didn\'t have a winning season at all in his first 5-years. Made him look like a terrible coach, right? But we know better.

Free-agency has changed things. Results are expected right away. If not, then the coach is usually fired.

But is it fair? In some cases I believe it is. And in some cases it is far from fair. Dan Reeves was fired in Atlanta and you\'ll have a hard time convincing me that it was his fault. Vick being out for the entire year probably had a little something to do with it.

But, back on point... It seems unusual for a coach like Haslett to keep his job in todays NFL. It\'s definately not the norm.

However, just because its not the norm, that doesn\'t necessarily mean Haslett should be fired.

Things have to be taken into consideration.

Such as:

1. Who\'s responsible for bringing in free-agents?
2. Can the Saints compete in free-agency?
3. Has the owner done his part in free-agency? (money)
4. How much of a role has the GM played in the lack of success?
5. Is someone other than the coach dictating what players are being drafted and/or signed?

Bottom line is that there COULD be other things that have really hinderd Haslett. I don\'t know that to be true, but I know coaching is only part of what could be the problem.

Coaches and QB are given the axe really quick this days. They used to be allowd more time. And it used to really pay off.

If coaches and QB were discarded 30 or 40 years ago like they are today then there would be a bunch of folks missing from the Hall of Fame. Like Terry Bradshaw, Chuck Noll, and Tom Landry.

While things are different in todays NFL, that doesn\'t mean that doing things the \"old\" way won\'t still work.

Saint_LB · 01-22-2005, 05:30 PM

I\'m going to have to disagree with that. In fact, only in recent history have teams fired their coaches within the first few years.

Good point, Gumbo. Now that I think about it, they did have a longer leash in those days. I think you are right on the mark regarding free-agency changing the game. Not only in football, but other sports as well. It is getting to the point nowadays that you can\'t count on having the same players from one year to the next. Just when you think your team is gaining an identity, whoosh they are gone. One example of this was the year that we lost Glover. I was shocked that we could let a player of his caliber go, but it is part of the game now.

WhoDat · 01-23-2005, 09:42 AM

Here is an initial argument:
If you owned something that made you money fairly consistently day in and day out, but the color of it wasn\'t as pleasing as it could be (it doesn\'t match your shirt or something), wouldn\'t you trade it in for another that was a better color?

So by this JKool, is it fair to assume that you think Tom Benson is a greedy SOB? I mean, if your argument is - it\'s a business, it\'s making money, that is what should be most important to him as a businessman, then I have to assume you think he\'s a lying sack when he tells the state he\'s so poor, no? I mean, if I own a business, and I make widgets, and my profits are really starting to shrink even after the state provides a constant and significant stream of cash flow, and all of my marketing research suggests that people believe my widgets to be inferior, I might - just might - think about who is making the widgets and the process they use. Wouldn\'t you?

JKool · 01-23-2005, 11:20 AM

Who, good question. I guess I don\'t know.

My response was intended to defeat the argument that the problem with the Saints is that Benson doesn\'t care if we win or lose. My thought was, given that he\'s going to spend about the same (last year we had one of the highest payrolls in the league) and he\'s going to earn about the same (suggested by LB when he said: \"As long as the money keeps rolling in, why rock the boat.\"), then why wouldn\'t he want a winning team, rather than a loser. I suppose, in a sense, that is greedy.

I don\'t know what his revenue is, so I can\'t really answer your questions.

WhoDat · 01-23-2005, 02:50 PM

JKool? Stumped? Hold the presses!!!

JKool · 01-23-2005, 05:09 PM

Who,

My point wasn\'t really about Benson. I was just about argument that he doesn\'t care if we win or lose. I just think it is a bit silly to say he doesn\'t care about winning or losing - especially when one believes that he will continue to make the same amount of money either way.

:dancingmonkey:

Danno · 01-23-2005, 06:02 PM

Who,

My point wasn\'t really about Benson. I was just about argument that he doesn\'t care if we win or lose. I just think it is a bit silly to say he doesn\'t care about winning or losing - especially when one believes that he will continue to make the same amount of money either way.

:dancingmonkey:

My personal opinion about Tommy Boy is that its not that he doesn\'t want to win, of course he wants to win.

His main problem is that he just doesn\'t know how. He probably thinks he learned enough from Finks to think he knows, but he doesn\'t. His stubborness is the reason we don\'t have a true GM. I like Loomis, but only on the business side. He nneds a real football guy to bounce off of. Rick Mueller is NOT that guy. If he had a Phil Savage type as DPP he\'d be adequate as a GM. Unfortunately he doesn\'t. I think too many people look at Loomis as the guy pulling the personell strings. I don\'t think he is at all.

Team up Loomis with a Phil Savage type DPP and its a recipe for success. RM has to go.

Saint_LB · 01-23-2005, 06:30 PM

I was not suggesting that Benson didn\'t care about winning, I was only wondering if winning is his top priority. I was suggesting that profit is the bottom line. Let me try to clarify this a little. I can think of at least a couple of owners in professional sports that truly do put winning as their top priority. On the top of the list would be Steinbrennar of the Yankees. Do you think that he cares more about profit margin or world series rings. Another person who seemed to fit this bill was DeBartolo when he was the head man with the Niners. I think they probably lost money in SF, but he didn\'t care, he just wanted to win. It is an ego thing. Being a car salesman, I don\'t think Benson could ever forget about the bottom line. All you have to do is look at the past and see how many free agents we haven\'t signed over the years. So my point is that yes, Benson wants to win, but not at all costs, IMHO.

01-22-2005, 04:24 PM	#1
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Why are the Saints different Before I get to the point, I would like to say that I applaud everyone in this forum for being able to argue in a civil way...that's what makes this forum special, IMO. Rarely is there any name-calling. I would also like to say that everybody makes valid points, and I don't think there is anyone who is totally right or totally wrong. My question is this. Why is Hazlett still our coach. Why is AB still our QB. (Not bashing AB, it just so happens that he has been our QB for the last four years.) Why are McCarthy and Venturi still our O and D coordinators. I have been watching professional football for the last forty years or so, and I have never seen a team stay pat for this long without some amount of success. Personally, I think it has a lot to do with our owner, and what is REALLY near and dear to his heart. As long as the money keeps rolling in, why rock the boat. Winning would be just an extra little caviat, as far as he is concerned...and his definiton of a successful franchise is much different than ours, as fans. Can anybody refresh my memory. Has there ever been a team other than us that has stayed pat this long without anything to show for it? [Edited on 22/1/2005 by Saint_LB]
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894

01-22-2005, 05:03 PM	#2
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Why are the Saints different LB, good inquiry. Here is an initial argument: If you owned something that made you money fairly consistently day in and day out, but the color of it wasn\'t as pleasing as it could be (it doesn\'t match your shirt or something), wouldn\'t you trade it in for another that was a better color? That is, if Benson owns a team that is going to make him money when it wins or when it loses, what is he risking to rock the boat? I\'m not buying the idea that the owner of an NFL team could really give a rats that his team wins or loses. Certainly not a guy who calls his team a bunch of Highschoolers. That just doesn\'t sound to me like a guy who is happy with the color of his money making gadget. Sure, I\'ll agree that Benson is part of the problem in that sometimes he doesn\'t seem to want to dole out some cash for the purpose of change (e.g. buy out Haz\' contract), but as Danno is fond of pointing out, Benson is NOT cheap when it comes to this team. Perhaps Benson\'s big mistake is coming to like the guys he hired? That sounds plausible. He\'s got a soft spot for Haz, maybe? That is the kind of thing that might make an owner a liability with respect to the team\'s winning or losing, isn\'t it? Thus, I\'m sympathetic to, though I see little evidence for it, an argument that Benson is soft on his top dogs, psychologically speaking. However, I don\'t see much reason to believe that Benson is happy to have a losing team - he wouldn\'t spend as much as he has on players and so on if he just wanted a loser.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

01-22-2005, 05:05 PM	#3
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Why are the Saints different Very good topic, Saint_LB First thing first: I have been watching professional football for the last forty years or so, and I have never seen a team stay pat for this long without some amount of success. I\'m going to have to disagree with that. In fact, only in recent history have teams fired their coaches within the first few years. In years past most owners stuck with their coaches for 5 or 6 years even though they were losing. Here\'s one example: Tom Landry Record first 5-years. 4 9 1 5 8 1 4 10 0 5 8 1 7 7 0 Landry didn\'t have a winning season at all in his first 5-years. Made him look like a terrible coach, right? But we know better. Free-agency has changed things. Results are expected right away. If not, then the coach is usually fired. But is it fair? In some cases I believe it is. And in some cases it is far from fair. Dan Reeves was fired in Atlanta and you\'ll have a hard time convincing me that it was his fault. Vick being out for the entire year probably had a little something to do with it. But, back on point... It seems unusual for a coach like Haslett to keep his job in todays NFL. It\'s definately not the norm. However, just because its not the norm, that doesn\'t necessarily mean Haslett should be fired. Things have to be taken into consideration. Such as: 1. Who\'s responsible for bringing in free-agents? 2. Can the Saints compete in free-agency? 3. Has the owner done his part in free-agency? (money) 4. How much of a role has the GM played in the lack of success? 5. Is someone other than the coach dictating what players are being drafted and/or signed? Bottom line is that there COULD be other things that have really hinderd Haslett. I don\'t know that to be true, but I know coaching is only part of what could be the problem. Coaches and QB are given the axe really quick this days. They used to be allowd more time. And it used to really pay off. If coaches and QB were discarded 30 or 40 years ago like they are today then there would be a bunch of folks missing from the Hall of Fame. Like Terry Bradshaw, Chuck Noll, and Tom Landry. While things are different in todays NFL, that doesn\'t mean that doing things the \"old\" way won\'t still work.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

01-22-2005, 05:30 PM	#4
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Why are the Saints different I\'m going to have to disagree with that. In fact, only in recent history have teams fired their coaches within the first few years. Good point, Gumbo. Now that I think about it, they did have a longer leash in those days. I think you are right on the mark regarding free-agency changing the game. Not only in football, but other sports as well. It is getting to the point nowadays that you can\'t count on having the same players from one year to the next. Just when you think your team is gaining an identity, whoosh they are gone. One example of this was the year that we lost Glover. I was shocked that we could let a player of his caliber go, but it is part of the game now.
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right!

01-23-2005, 09:42 AM	#5
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Why are the Saints different Here is an initial argument: If you owned something that made you money fairly consistently day in and day out, but the color of it wasn\'t as pleasing as it could be (it doesn\'t match your shirt or something), wouldn\'t you trade it in for another that was a better color? So by this JKool, is it fair to assume that you think Tom Benson is a greedy SOB? I mean, if your argument is - it\'s a business, it\'s making money, that is what should be most important to him as a businessman, then I have to assume you think he\'s a lying sack when he tells the state he\'s so poor, no? I mean, if I own a business, and I make widgets, and my profits are really starting to shrink even after the state provides a constant and significant stream of cash flow, and all of my marketing research suggests that people believe my widgets to be inferior, I might - just might - think about who is making the widgets and the process they use. Wouldn\'t you?
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.\"

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

01-23-2005, 11:20 AM	#6
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Why are the Saints different Who, good question. I guess I don\'t know. My response was intended to defeat the argument that the problem with the Saints is that Benson doesn\'t care if we win or lose. My thought was, given that he\'s going to spend about the same (last year we had one of the highest payrolls in the league) and he\'s going to earn about the same (suggested by LB when he said: \"As long as the money keeps rolling in, why rock the boat.\"), then why wouldn\'t he want a winning team, rather than a loser. I suppose, in a sense, that is greedy. I don\'t know what his revenue is, so I can\'t really answer your questions.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

01-23-2005, 02:50 PM	#7
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Why are the Saints different JKool? Stumped? Hold the presses!!!
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

01-23-2005, 05:09 PM	#8
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Why are the Saints different Who, My point wasn\'t really about Benson. I was just about argument that he doesn\'t care if we win or lose. I just think it is a bit silly to say he doesn\'t care about winning or losing - especially when one believes that he will continue to make the same amount of money either way. :dancingmonkey:

01-23-2005, 06:02 PM	#9
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	Why are the Saints different Who, My point wasn\'t really about Benson. I was just about argument that he doesn\'t care if we win or lose. I just think it is a bit silly to say he doesn\'t care about winning or losing - especially when one believes that he will continue to make the same amount of money either way. :dancingmonkey: My personal opinion about Tommy Boy is that its not that he doesn\'t want to win, of course he wants to win. His main problem is that he just doesn\'t know how. He probably thinks he learned enough from Finks to think he knows, but he doesn\'t. His stubborness is the reason we don\'t have a true GM. I like Loomis, but only on the business side. He nneds a real football guy to bounce off of. Rick Mueller is NOT that guy. If he had a Phil Savage type as DPP he\'d be adequate as a GM. Unfortunately he doesn\'t. I think too many people look at Loomis as the guy pulling the personell strings. I don\'t think he is at all. Team up Loomis with a Phil Savage type DPP and its a recipe for success. RM has to go.

01-23-2005, 06:30 PM	#10
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Why are the Saints different I was not suggesting that Benson didn\'t care about winning, I was only wondering if winning is his top priority. I was suggesting that profit is the bottom line. Let me try to clarify this a little. I can think of at least a couple of owners in professional sports that truly do put winning as their top priority. On the top of the list would be Steinbrennar of the Yankees. Do you think that he cares more about profit margin or world series rings. Another person who seemed to fit this bill was DeBartolo when he was the head man with the Niners. I think they probably lost money in SF, but he didn\'t care, he just wanted to win. It is an ego thing. Being a car salesman, I don\'t think Benson could ever forget about the bottom line. All you have to do is look at the past and see how many free agents we haven\'t signed over the years. So my point is that yes, Benson wants to win, but not at all costs, IMHO.
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right!