You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

... you want to win the super bowl.

The simple reality is the Saints have NOT competed in free-agency.

Instead, we've gone the cheap route in free-agency!!

Now, the question is, whose fault is it that we haven't competed in free-agency?

Haslett? That's very hard for me to believe. Haslett doesn't want the best players in FA? Come on!! Haslett would have to be INSANE not to want to sign the big name FA.

Or could it be Benson and Loomis?

Let's see...

Benson is the one who has to shell out the money. So, you tell me who's the most likely culprit in the FA decisions?!?!

And then there is Loomis!! What is Loomis? An accountant whose job it is to watch every last cent!!

Benson and Loomis have spent money on players that were drafted. But they HAD to do that!!

But you can't compete with the Big Boys if you go the cheap route in free-agency!!

Haslett or no Haslett, we MUST start competing in free-agency.

The Orlando Ruffs of the world ain't going to get it done.

Every year there are "proven" players on the market and every year we watch them sign with other teams.

Whose fault is that? You tell me??



[Edited on 27/1/2005 by GumboBC]

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

well on or two names that come to mind are trotter and douglas. they both played for other teams and had all the hype. then they were both released and then went back to the eagles to be decent again. or in trotters case pretty darn good again. you cant be sure of what you get there either

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

Billy, I\'m with you 100% brother. (Aside from that Haslett bears no responsibility business)

The Eagles \"overpaid\" for both Owens and Kearse and here they are in the superbowl. Maybe there\'s something to this free agency business after all.

It\'s Brooks\' fault.

[Edited on 27/1/2005 by BrooksMustGo]

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

spk, this is a look at the shiny lights over there and please ignore Haslett cause I want him to stay post. Don\'t get sucked in man.

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

saintswhodi --

Dude, you\'re okay in my book.

You might think I have an agenda to deflect blame from certain players or coaches... but I don\'t.

Unless you think Benson and Loomis share no blame.

Now, I\'m totally speculating about Benson and Loomis. But I think both have played a large role in us NOT competing in free-agency.

My way of thinking is Haslett isn\'t so much worried about spending Benson\'s money.

Is that \"flawed\" logic?

Come on man... tell me?

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

Best article I could find on the subject.

http://clarionherald.org/20020731/buddyd.htm

Now it is an article I found on personnel decisions within the team, and I haven\'t found one contradictory yet.

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

saintwhodi --

Thanks for the article. Very good read.

But that stil doesn\'t answer too much for me.

Does Haslett indeed make all the personnel decisions?

Or how much of a role does Loomis have?

Honestly, I don\'t know. But I wish I did.

And is Benson handcuffing Haslett by not spending the money in free-agency?

If it is Haslett\'s fault, then Haslett needs to be fired immediately!!

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

I don\'t wanna argue, but like I said, it\'s the best article I could find. If it was a condition of his extension, I don\'t knwo why he wouldn\'t have it. Just ask yourself, how is it that when Haslett decides to change schemes every year, we get rid of players and get players who fit that scheme? He wanted to get bigger on the line, bye Glover hello Hand and Jackson. I don\'t think that\'s coincidence. HE claimed they needed more speed in the secondary, bye Sammy hello Tebucky. So unless you believe Loomis is getting players AND THEN Haz decides to change his scheme, I have every reason to believe based on this article and the decisions that were made Haz has as much to do with personnel decisions as anyone.

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

This is pretty much a repeat of the thread I started not too long ago...\"Why are the Saints different?\" You can\'t blame Loomis, Hazlett, Mueller, Mora, or Finks...so that only leaves one person. If the free agents you named previously are the best you can come up with, then what does that tell you. Think about some of the FA\'s that we have not signed over the years...Neon Deion, TO...just to name a couple. I think that money is definitlely one factor, but it also could be that people just don\'t want to come to NO because of the losing reputation. That is the only thing that can be said to possibly defend Benson, because they would probably have to make offers that they could not refuse, and that just ain\'t gonna happen here.

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

Joe Horn ruined this team as far as FA. Don\'t kill me yet. Hear me out...

It was Haslet\'s first year and they broght in this nobody from KC and he lit up the sky. Ever since in every offseason we have been looking for another Joe Horn at other positions.

The thing is, we touched greatness once. Do they expect to be able to do it again and agin? I guess so.

SOME of the moves have been total disasters others have just been minor disasters. But I can only think of one great FA pickup we\'ve made in Haslet\'s tenure and that\'s Joe.

Thank God he\'s paying dividends on the field because we are certainly paying for them off the field.

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

ScottyRo, we have bumped heads recently but that is a damn fine assessment and very much worth considering. Good analysis dude. I am truly impressed. I am glad I heard you out before tuning it out. Damn fine thinking my man. :salute:

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

Scotty,

I totally agree!

That is what I said last year, but I\'ve got to tell you Horn was just the capstone. Glover and Knight were the other two. Glover was no-namer from the Raiders and Knight was an undrafted FA.

This team fell in love with its ability to get the no namer to be a star. That completely explains the Ruff pick.

However, it doesn\'t explain the Tebucky trade or the McKenzie trade. It seems to me that is one in the right direction and another in the wrong. Rodgers was a solid, but not great acquisition. I guess, I\'m trying to decide if they\'re starting to get out of the \"Horn rut\" that you pointed out.

The team is not \"cheap\". The problems are these:
(1) Scotty\'s problem pointed out here.
(2) Inability to develop players. Notice that Glover, Horn, and Knight are all products of a different set of coaches.
(3) Unwillingness to get \"overpay\" to get \"proven comodities\". Sure, I\'m not about wasting money, but how much did we pay Ruff? Too much.

For several years I\'ve been saying that it is FA that is really killing our chances. We completely sucked in FA for the last, well, many years.

Oh please get us one of those many great OTs available in FA this year, please!

[Edited on 27/1/2005 by JKool]

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

It\'s really hard to get a point across sometimes. But let me try anyway!! ;)

I\'ve heard all the talk about \"coaching\" being the problem.

I\'m inclined to agree with that statement.

But not with the reasoning some have laid out.

I don\'t think its in the X\'s and O\'s on offense. I think its in the personnel. More specifically, I think Deuce being injured and the offensive line was MOST of the problem this year. Not all, but MOST.

On defense, I totally think it is X\'s and O\'s!! But again, that\'s not all of the problems. There simply isn\'t enough good talent at certain spots to be a great defense. But there\'s enough to be much better than what we were.. as seen by the last 4-games.

The defense was day and night when compared with the first 12-games. SOMEONE changed the scheme over the last 4-games and we saw an attacking defense. Venturi needs to go, IMHO.

More than anything, I think talent evaluation and Venturi\'s scheme have been major problems on defense.

Haslett\'s insistence on keeping Ventui is reason enough for Haslett to be fired.

McCarthy, well, I can\'t say the same thing. Just too many things outside of McCarthys control that have contributed to the lack of success on offense.

And while I can see a good case for Haz being fired, I can\'t pin all of the personnel moves on him. I just don\'t know that to be true.

I really have my doubts about Loomis and Benson.

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

Billy,

I agree that Xs and Ox were a huge issue with the Defense this year. Several of us had a long discussion about this around midseason.

However, when I look at our LBs - we have two rookies, one with a big heart and another who has all the skills but ends up out of position rather easily. After that, NO ONE. Rodgers, I believe is done, and he wasn\'t anything special anyway. Allen - NO! We need at least one LB.

Also at CB, Thomas was hurt, but he was hurt and now a year older. McKenzie is good, but some of his success was due to teams not having time to look at the role he played here for more than a game or two (so it was harder to game plan against him). Don\'t get me wrong, I think he\'s the man, but I saw him play in GB, a lot, and I think when we settle down, well see that he is very good, not great. After that, we have Craft, Brown, and who, oh yeah no one of note. I think we\'re short a CB honestly. Thomas or Brown could get the job done with a good rush, but they don\'t exactly strike fear into the heart of the enemy.

Tebucky. I\'m in the minority here. I think he\'s fine, but we pay him too much.

SS. I think Mitchell can do it, but that is guess, at best! Bellamy, sooner or later the old man won\'t be able to get the job done. He\'s Ambrose now, but not as fast... yikes!

Our DEs are studs. Young is a fine DT, but he gets pushed around a lot without help. We either need a DT, or that fat guy we drafted needs to step up. Our inside isn\'t that great right now.

I guess, my assessment, as of this minute, is that personnel is also an issue - not just scheme.

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

1 . benson has got to open his check book

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

1 . benson has got to open his check book
2. loomis has got to start drafting better players
3. the coaches have got to use those players effectively
4. we need players who can understand a basic offense and have the motivation to play everyday--as well as will put the blame on thier backs instead of blaming others--none of which brooks has shown to be capable of doing.

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

Thanks for the kind words Whodi. But don\'t get to thinking that I\'m not gonna bash heads with you in the future. What would be the fun in that?

So since there are too many things outside of his control, when the team has had success we shouldn\'t give him credit? I mean, it\'s outside of his control isn\'t it? When the offense does wel,l it\'s inspite of him right?

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

I\'ve listed all the things that I thought were outside of McCarthy\'s control:

1. Poor offensive line play.
2. Stupid penalties.
3. Injurys. Mainly Deuce.

What I\'m saying is when he hasn\'t had to contend with those things (which is rarely) our offense has done well.

Of course when our offense does well McCarthy deserves some of the credit. Not all, the players have a lot to do with any success.

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

The problem can be the coach, without it actually being a problem with coaching. Like having a problem with a moron, but not actually having a problem with his moronic activities. ;)

[Edited on 27/1/2005 by BlackandBlue]

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

That\'s deep !! :P


JoeSam shoud get a kick out of that one.

You clever dog... :mad:

I\'ll get you back!! Its coming..

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

Billy,

Very close to the mark here. We must all realize that Benson and his business brain trust doesn\'t necessarily have a goal of winning the SB. OTOH the Saints are in the top 10 in the NFL in salary IIRC.

All Benson really needs to do to keep the fan base is make a bit of progress. Fundamentally if they can get the team to 10 wins, into the playoffs, and winning a playoff game every year, the number of completely dissatisfied fans will drop dramatically.

That can be done on the cheap.

Two pretty simple observations pointing to the SB:

1) The best defenses are always sniffing the SB.

2) The best defenses are a combination of good (not necessarily great) players combined with great coaching and schemes (see Jim Johnson and Romeo Crennel in this year\'s SB as examples)

We saw a whiff of that the last 4 games of this year. Our defense held 4 teams below 21 points. We won all 4 games. The Saints are 16-6 in the last 3 years when the defense holds teams to under 21 points.

Defense wins NFL games consistently.

Our defense was 32nd out of 32 teams in the NFL last season in total defense. Because of the last 4 games we moved out of the last spot in most of the other statistical categories (scoring, passing, rushing) but were in the bottom 5-10 in those too.

So Benson\'s brain trust would be well served to spend on good defensive players and outstanding defensive coaching.

I think the player side is making progress. McKenzie was a definite upgrade. The defensive ends, all three of them, can be Pro Bowl caliber.

As usual up the middle we still have holes. We need a dominant defensive tackle (no lazy Sullies should apply), an elite MLB, and some clear direction on the safeties (possibly through the draft).

But more importantly than all of that we need an outstanding DC. Venturi is the biggest liability to the defense as a whole. We need that Johnson, Crennel, LeBeau, Kiffen type guy that has a scheme and knows how to work it.

We don\'t. And until we do, it won\'t matter how much money gets spent on players.

SFIAH

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

All this FA, Benson spend more money talk, just reminds me, of what I think the Saints Bigest problem is..
It is not the lack of big name players.
it is not the lack of talent (cmon do you think our talent level is that Low)
It is not that Benson doesn\'t want a SB, and is only willing to pay for an upgrade slightly.

I can think of 1 reason the Saints have digressed of improving is this, THEY ARE NOT A TEAM!!!!!!!!

charecter flaws and a lack of heart has Killed this Team!
I loved the Fact westarted seeing a Team form in the last 4 games of the season, Mainly because of Colby Bockwoldt, Courtney Watson, and James Allen.... Another Addition that in my opinion will pay huge dividens in this coming season is Bryan Young.. he has inspired these young players that are still influenceable...... Bryan Young, while smallish for the position doesn\'t Quit, has Heart, and Awsome work ethics!!!!!!

The number 1 determining factor to bring some one to the Saints in FA should be Desire work ethic and Charecter.

Our team at times looks to be playing against each other instead of playing like a TEAM!!!!

I do not think the Patriots are that much more talented than The Saints, but they all work for a common goal, and have Team Spirit, always someone on the sidelines pushing Teammates, always a full sideline of them!!!!!!! they are disciplined!!!!!! Have you seen our TEAM like That??? It Is partly Coaching, but you need coachable players!!!!!!

[Edited on 28/1/2005 by WD52]

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

very, very true.

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

The Eagles were pretty damn good before T.O. and Kearse got there.. with the player turnover in the NFL being what it is today, you don\'t go to 4 NFC Championships on a row without having a strong organization from top to bottom...

... in college, it comes down to who has the better athletes, but not so in the NFL. There\'s a reason why all those scouts are at the combine with chronogarphs, tape measures, and charts in hand... they have physical standards that a player should meet... so that generally yields pretty much the same level of physical talent across teams in the NFL... that this guy was clocked at 4.25 irunning for 40 yards in a straight line and this other was clocked at 4.65 really makes no diffence once the pads go on.. same as benching 450 pounds vs 475...

... so then the question becomes: what is it that makes these groups of roughly equally physically gifted athletes different from one another (as in winning teams, mediocre teams, and losing teams? Is it the players or the system?

... ther are some players that are just better than others at playing the game at their respective positions, no question about it, but the NFL isn\'t a pickup game, or college, for that matter. You just can\'t put together a group of significantly better athletes than your opponent...

It is the system... the system is what put players together, what assures/destroys the so-called \"chemistry\" among players, what utilizes and directs individual abilities in a group effort to accomplish a common goal (in layman\'s terms, \"playing as a team\"...

.. so, when choosing a free agent, or a draftee for that matter, the first question needs to be \"is it that this guy plays the position better than this other, or is it the system he plays in\"? The second question would be \"how does he fit in OUR system?\" A good player will shine in good systems... A great player rarely turns a bad system around... In the case of Trotter, T.O., and Kearse, they are shining bright in a very, very good system..

You've got to compete with the "Big Boys" if..
 

Tobias-Reiper --

First, I\'d like to say that was very well thought out and I agree with most of it.

But, IMO, the \"system\" is only as good as the players.

Systems are figured out and they are stopped.

The 46 defense of Buddy Ryan was one of the best ever. But the players had a lot to do with its success. Where\'s the 46 defense today? It\'s not even around anymore.

And I don\'t think the physical ability of most atheletes is that close either. A lot of players have it ... ALL ... size, speed, and strength. Most players don\'t possess all three.

While ceratain players are interchangeable in a \"system\", MOST are not. That\'s why \"systems\" fail after a certain amount of time.

At some point coaches don\'t have the \"talent\" to keep the winning going even though the system stays the same.

And that\'s why coaches like Jimmy Johnson, John Gruden, Bill Parcells, Dan Reeves, Jim Fossil, ect., ect., can\'t get it done.

Its because the \"talent\" level isn\'t the same and they have a hard time finding those \"superstar\" players at \"key\" positions.

Show me any super bowl team and they are full of talent.

Now, the system is very important. And talent is very important. So are \"smart\" players.

It\'s really a combination of all three.

But, I think it starts with the players and then its up to the coach to utilize those players.

[Edited on 28/1/2005 by GumboBC]