baronm

first off you need to change the climate==which is why most of us who want brooks gone want it to happen...send a message to the players that mediocrity will not be rewarded as it has been for so long.

yes, a problem is benson..but don\'t say that mueller was the second coming either.

GumboBC

Danno --

I think Brian Young is servicable.

But, you know how I feel about defense. While a lot of fans are enamored by the \"glamor\" spots on defense, like.......the cornerback position, I think the DT are where it starts.

I think the defensive tackles are the most important players on defense. Period!!

I think you start by having dominant defensive tackles. Brian Young isn\'t my idea of the way to build a defense and I think he\'s always going be a liability there. No matter how bad our other DTs may be.....Young is still the starter.

I\'m hopeful Sully will come around because at least he has the skills to be dominant.

LKelley67

whodi-gumbo love... that\'s a first for me to see here LOL

i have to say as well i count that as the best gumbo post i have seen.

LBs- whew, think about it. watson is a smart good to grow guy but nowhere near a cornerstone. after that the chart falls off to virtual fill-in\'s on most teams. that is why i would.be happy if they paid high end market price to get someone like hartwell. then make do with the current cast of characters in the third slot with maybe another draft pick thrown in.

go ahead, get a safety but don\'t overpay. there\'s no one on the market that deserves it. the group there are veterans at least (vs. lb\'s). make or break it for mel mitchell.

i wanna hear more whodi-gumbo defense ponderings.

GumboBC

LMAO... :P

You know... I\'ve found the best relationships I\'ve got here at B&G come from some of the folks I\'ve gotten into it the most with.

I\'ve also noticed that when I say something completey negative about any of the coaches and players that there\'s a lot of folks who say.....

......... Geez, that was the best post Gumbo has ever made.

Of course it seems that way to some of you because you agree with it.

It\'s not that I disagree with some of you about the coaches, Brooks, etc, ect.

It\'s that I disagee with some of your \"reasoning.\"

Like.. Qbs are defined by win/loss records.

Or McCarthy\'s playcalling was the problem

Or, Haslett\'s players quit on him.

Or, leadership is the big problem

McCarthy might have needed to go, but I don\'t know about this play calling stuff. And I\'ve stated why.

So, I might agree with some of the overall statements, but man I sure do question some of y\'alls reasoning...

And, of course, some of you guys need to hear the otherside on most of this stuff..... No need to thank me. Just frustrating you is thanks enough for me...LMAO!!

baronm

It\'s that I disagee with some of your \"reasoning.\"

Like.. Qbs are defined by win/loss records.
--well, if your offense doesn\'t score in the first quarter even when you get to the red zone--because of the quarterbacks desicion making..and then the quarterback shows his AZZ to reporters and refuses accountability.

Or McCarthy\'s playcalling was the problem

not saying it wasn\'t...but was that the biggest problem or was it that he didn\'t have a offense to carry out his game plan.

Or, Haslett\'s players quit on him.
well winning the last four games shows us this didn\'t happen.

Or, leadership is the big problem
--EVERYBODY, and I mean everybody that has been asked about New ORleans has stated that this is their biggest problem. FOotball is the one game in which you must have leaders in order for your team to win..and those leaders are usually the QB, C and MLB...

RDOX

Me Too! This was one of the best threads that I have read since coming to this board.

Gumbo,

I disagree with you on Brian Young. I like his motor and his fire. He and Grant have stood up and kicked some tail. The problem is the same as when Glover and Hand were here. Sully should have been the stud that Hand wasn\'t. Sully, damn him, decided it was more fun to pig out at the media table than to play football. I blame Venturi, Hazlett, LoomBoom and Baby Mule for that debacle.

I also think that BaronM is right. Get rid of Leon, not because he doesn\'t have talent, but because he honestly doesn\'t inspire heart in his teammates. Grant has stepped up with the leadership role with the D. That\'s why I\'d trade Howard, who by all rights should be the leader of Hazlett\'s Defense, since he was the guy that Hazlett picked first.

Assuming that a decent safety comes available in FA as well as a decent LB or two, we should raise the bar with regard to defense. However, with Leon running things on offense, and not scoring in the first quarter, the Defense is gonna get tired from being on the field for long stretches. Had Leon and the Offense done a halfway decent job of staying on the field longer, I\'d be willing to bet that the Defense wouldn\'t have finished last. No, they were not great, but they might have been respectable, but we\'ll never know now, will we?

GumboBC

I can\'t begin to tell you how many times I\'ve read here on B&G that the players quit on Haslett. I tried to tell \'em that they didn\'t quit. I suppose maybe that 4 game win streak put a halt to that talk.....

That\'s what some of you guys say. Delhomme\'s leadership got the Panthers to the super bowl in 2003. That\'s what a bunch of folks told me.

But, Delhommes leadership only got him 7-wins without that dominant defense and running game. Well, actullay they still had a damn good running game.

I suppose Mike Vick\'s leadership got them to the NFC championship game.

I suppose Culppepper\'s leadership got them in the playoffs and beyond.

I suppose McNabb has got to be one of the best leaders we\'ve ever seen. Afterall, he\'s gotten to 4 NFC championship games and a superbowl.

Every winning team has a great leader and hardly any of the losing teams do. Very confusing to me....

LKelley67

gumbo, on that leadership thing i think there is a strong consensus not just on this board but otherwise that there is not a lack of talent on the saints offense but the intangibles that make them the league\'s most renowned underachieving team. before free agency took root some teams just won a plethora of talent that overwhelmed others. with parity now the difference between teams is less n less, a finer line. yes, you must have a certain level of talent but it takes those intangibles to go to the next level. this applies to the whole team but all the more to the qb and other leadership roles. i think this translates to quality of play, regardless of wins/losses beyond stats whether great or average. brady is compared to montana cuz of more than any stats. marino will probably shoo-in to the HOF with incredible lifetime statistics. as good as those are it was his overall leadership and quality of play that gets him in. beyond stats is what makes youngsters like big ben and leftwich look like the real deal. poise, presence, leadership, performance when it counts most, etc. this is the critique of ab. yes, he has moments but the moments seem to be getting less. and if not regression there is certainly no progress in those intangibles.

turbo_dog

I have to say that I\'m actually a little impressed by the quality of the two coaches they have hired. I hope their winning attitude will rub off on the whole team.

Still worried about who they\'re going to hire for OC, though...

GumboBC

LKelley67--

I know there are many who believe leadership makes a big difference in football. But.......I\'m not convinced.

Many folks thinks there\'s life on another planet somewhere, but I ain\'t convinced about that either...

Here\'s my arguement about the leadership thing as it relates to football.

If leadership is critical in the NFL. Then what does that make Donavan McNabb? He\'s been to 4 NFC championship games and one super bowl.

What\'s McNabb doing in the leadership department? All I see him doing is moon-walking in the endzone and joking around.

Jake Delhomme is considered to be a great leader by many on this board. And his leadership was listed as a BIG reason the Panthers got to the super bowl. But, unless Delhomme lost his leadership, it only got him 7 wins this year. Same leadership + less talented team = 7 wins.

That\'s only a couple of examples. I could have listed Mike Vick, Culpepper, or a bunch of others.

What I believe is players believe in what they see with their eyes. They believe their QB can make a play, or they don\'t.

Tom Brady hasn\'t showed me anything other than he can make some clutch plays. Does that mean he\'s a great leader? Not hardly. It shows me he\'s a good QB, but great leader?

Yeah, if you define leadership as the ability to make a play.

If I were a player, it wouldn\'t make too much difference about if my QB was a great leader. What would make a difference is if my QB could get me the ball and if he could make some plays.

If my QB couldn\'t get it done...........then.........I ain\'t much worried about anything else..