Danno

Terry Robiskie has been mentioned as a possible RB coach in New Orleans.
Word is the Saints will make a strong push to bring fired Packers DB coach Kurt Schottenheimer to New Orleans, and the rumor that it will be to take over as defensive coordinator won’t go away.
http://www.profootballweekly.com/PF...hispers1929.htm

New Orleans

No matter who guides the Saints’ offense next season — Mike McCarthy, last year’s architect, was rumored to be on the move, and head coach Jim Haslett may have someone new in place by the time you read this — we’re told the attack won’t change much. While there could be different formations and packages, the Saints still will be a run-oriented team. With RB Deuce McAllister entering his prime, we’re told the Saints are focused on shoring up the offensive line and making sure he has room to run. This season, the Saints were forced to pass more because they fell behind early, something that allowed WR Joe Horn to tie for the NFC lead in receptions with 94. Although Haslett will leave the new attack up to whichever coordinator is in place — we hear Haslett rarely attended an offensive meeting this season — there is a belief that he wants to keep the Saints grounded to take some pressure off QB Aaron Brooks to make plays.
http://www.profootballweekly.com/PF...m?mode=nfcsouth

[Edited on 24/1/2005 by Danno]

FireVenturi

I would dig Robiskie as an RB coach...but not as an OC!

WhoDat

Rumors about McCarthy AND Brooks.... hhhmmm... those could be \"major changes\" around there. Think Haz took exception to the \"great player on a bad team comment?\" One too many outbursts without enough to support them? Too many fights with team players. Too much friction from the rest of the core stars (Grant, Horn, Turley, etc.) Maybe Haslett is smart enough to realize that when the cornerback who has been on the team for 6 weeks can stand up at a meeting and get the team more riled up than the 5-year starter at QB, maybe it\'s time for that QB to go. We can hope, right?

\"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.\"

BrooksMustGo

Haslett said. \"As long as I\'m here, I want Aaron Brooks as my quarterback.\"

ScottyRo

Haslet has lied before.

bayouking318

Brooks this, Brooks that. I hope the Brooks topic just die. Fans are quick to say release. What then? Bring in a has been or do another Ricky Williams deal with San Diego.

FireVenturi

Excellent point. the only available upgrade would be Hasselback(FA) and i think he will stay in Seattle!

FrenzyFan

I can think of no better argument for what I am about to say than: The New England Patriots.

I am beginning to think that team chemistry is the single most important factor in the winning of games in the NFL. I believe that the coaching for NE is great (who can argue?) but it should not be able to make a defense the likes of the Patriots - especially out of cast-offs and players from the offense filling in in the secondary.

I used to believe that star players can compensate for poor team work. I now believe that star players are nice to have and they help out a lot, but a strong TEAM is everything.

That being the case, and considering how seemingly disruptive (see: Primadonna) Brooks has been; I would say that ANYTHING would be an upgrade. I have said in another thread that I would take Bouman for a year and deal with losing just to get rid of Brooks and move on to \"tomorrow\'s QB\" (player to be named later).

His play is average and were it all about that, I would say keep him. It\'s not about that. It\'s about his attitude, his me-first-ism, and his inability to be a part of this team. Add in the fact that Brooks is definitely not a star player.... the decision seems clear to me.

Just my two cents.

\"The AB brand of TP will hurt your O-ring.\" - BlackandBlue

http://www.darrylbercegeay.com/wsmith1.jpg

saintswhodi

Nice point Frenzy and the one I have been trying to make for a while. Yes you can measure stats but you CAN NOT measure team chemistry, yet we can all agree it is one of the most important parts of success. I would like to know one championship team that did not have team chemistry and has a quarterback who deflects blame better than a Jedi does blaster shots. Team chemistry is a MUST, and the guy we have in there now does NOTHING to promote that, by his attitude, his play, or his comments to the media that anyone can readily read. That\'s another two cents that\'s worth a dollar Frenzy. I am sick of this \"who would be better so we gotta stick with him\" stuff. Turn the page. It\'s time for the bum to go.

ScottyRo

Team chemistry is an interesting concept. The problem is that it cannot be shown with any empirical data.

Does New England have team chemistry or do they APPEAR to have team chemistry because they are winning? Isn\'t it just a result of the individual talents and coaching?

Sure, team chemistry might be defined as how well the players and coaches get along, but every team get s along to some degree. Isn\'t it easier for a team that is winning to get along?

There can be disruptive influences on a team as there can be positive influences on a team. There are few disruptive influences on NE\'s team because they are wining and everyone is happy. Should they start to lose unexpectedly, fingers will begin to point and \"team chemistry\" suffers.

The only team chemistry that I do not think is the direct result of winning or losing is that chemistry between teammates indicated by how well they handle in-game adversity. That is where trust is built. Nevertheless, trust, too, will probably only be gained through adversity if the team wins.

To sum up, good team chemistry is a result of winning not a factor in indicating that a team might win.