TSN Saints Report

GumboBC · 02-07-2005, 01:40 PM

So what you are saying it 4 different teams who shipped ONE, I repeat ONE QB is similar to a team that in 4 years has released or traded FOUR different QBs, Blake(proven starter here), Bulger(proven starter elsewhere) Delhomme(proven starter elsewhere) and J.T. (we\'ll have to wait on that one)? That is your proof? Why do I even bother? :casstet:

Oh, so you wanted me to give you a scenario EXACTLY like Delhomme and Bulger going else where.

I\'m sorry, you should have said that in the first place, saintwhodi. I can\'t do that. But that wasn\'t what we were talking about.

I believe it was you who suggested that Saints were somehow unique by letting Qbs get away and they went on to have success else where.

I clearly showed you where that\'s not the case.

I really don\'t know what else to say. I\'m out on this one...

saintswhodi · 02-07-2005, 01:52 PM

Generally when someone asks for proof, they are looking for a similar situation. If I say a Ferrari goes 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, and then you say well the Pinto has a new engine, well yes both would be about CARS, which is the general subject, but unless you give a comparison to a car similar to a Ferrari, you are way off. I knew there wasn\'t any situations similar, that\'s why I asked for your proof, and I could have given your example before you did. The situation in New Orleans is unique to any other, possibly in NFL history.

will have him shipped off, traded, or cut before he ever gets to show what he could do here.

This denotes the fact that there is a HISTORY of this happening, which there is. If I felt all teams were the same, the statement would have read, \"Well, like every other NFL team\'s back-ups, he will be shipped off to start and be successful elsewhere.\" But like I said, why do I bother?

GumboBC · 02-07-2005, 02:07 PM

This is the only thing I have left to say on this subject, saintwhodi.

Instead of bashing Haslett and co. for letting Delhomme and Bulger get away. How \'bout some praise for them actually signing back-ups as good as Bulger and Delhomme.

How many teams do you know that have 2-back-ups good enough to start for other teams?

You can\'t keep 3 starting QBs on your team. And if you think you can you are misguided!!!

Delhomme or Bulger never showed us anything to make us think they could be better than what we had. Nothing!!

Hell, we never even saw Bulger play. And Delhomme played very little. That\'s probably why Delhomme wasn\'t signed to a big contract when he signed with the Panthers. In fact, Delhomme was the back-up when he went to the Panthers. And Bulger was the back-up when he went to the Rams.

I don\'t know what your deal is or what you are trying to prove. But.......IT\'S MISGUIDED.

I have no problem placing blame where blame belongs.

You act as if you knew Delhomme and Bulger were great QBs when they were with the Saints. No one, and I mean no one, had anyway of knowing that. Now you want to sit here with your 20/20 hindsight and tell us how smart you were and how dumb the Saints were.

Great, you\'re the smart one and Halsett and co. are complete fools.

And the salary cap prevents any team from stocking all those good players at every position.

Your dissatisfaction with Brooks drives just about every thought you have about the Saints organization.

And that\'s my final thought on this subject. I AM OUT!!

[Edited on 7/2/2005 by GumboBC]

Danno · 02-07-2005, 02:12 PM

ANALYSIS

Positives: Well-proportioned athlete who knows how to manage an offense ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Has a quick setup, moving away from the center fluidly ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Displays a high release point and even though he\'s more comfortable in the pocket, he shows good improvisation skills on the move ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Touch passer with a good understanding of defensive coverage ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Has good poise in the pocket, rarely forcing his throws ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Shows solid timing and consistency on slants and fades, feathering the ball past the defenders so his receivers do not have to work to make the catch ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Can vary the speed on his passes and will step up and make the completion when his pocket collapses ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Scans the field quickly to spot his open target and has the body control to make defenders miss when on the move.

Negatives: Does not have the arm strength or consistency to throw deep ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ His lack of ideal velocity causes his balls to flutter and die when throwing from the opposite hash mark ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Does not seem to throw across the body effectively, tending to go to a side-arm release on his deep throws ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ While he stands tall in the pocket, he does not have the lateral agility to escape when flushed out of the pocket or the quickness to gain much yardage past the line of scrimmage ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Does not really drive the ball, as he puts too much air behind his long tosses ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ More of a short-area passer who is more comfortable operating from the shotgun rather than under center.

This may be what they are referring to when they say he needs to get stronger.
Of course several QB\'s had mediocre arm strength coming in.
Montana, Pennington, Brees, Delhomme, Bulger, Brady (I think).
Remember this scouting report is 2 or 3 years old so his arm strength may have improved significantly already. He may not be the next John Elway but I wouldn\'t call him a Danny Weurffel either.

Wasn\'t he a Patriot last year?

saintswhodi · 02-07-2005, 02:23 PM

Good one Gumbo. I knew how good Blake was, did you? He was 7-4. Is that proof to what he could do?

And man are you way off. Show me where I EVER said I knew Delhomme and bulger were gonna be good. Do you have that proof? I know this, they never got the chance to compete. Obviously for someone to trade for Bulger he must have done something that made them want him huh? So let\'s see, fans call for Delhomme cause AB stinks so instead of letting him openly compete, they let him go elsewhere. Before any controversy could be started, let\'s get rid of Bulger. J.T. is a hometown boy so this will be another Delhomme situation( and it was already starting to be) let\'s trade him. Blake PROVED he could win here, but we wanna go with AB so let\'s give him his walking papers. See the difference? Who cares how I feel about AB when this is the team\'s track record?

Also, I would praise Haslett and Co. if those players got a chance to COMPETE. They didn\'t. Noone wanted to ruffle the feathers of delicate Brooks so they were shown the door. Or are you gonna dispute that too when it says in recently published articles Brooks was McCarthy\'s project? His idea. His QB that he wanted. Read a little history man. So why don\'t YOU chastise Haslett and co. for not tapping into all this potential we had RIGHT HERE?

So let me say again the specific proof I want, show me where I said I knew Delhomme and Bulger were gonna be good. anywhere at any point in any conversation on this forum or any other.

GumboBC · 02-07-2005, 02:34 PM

And man are you way off. Show me where I EVER said I knew Delhomme and bulger were gonna be good. Do you have that proof? I know this, they never got the chance to compete.

Your dissatisfaction with Brooks really comes to the surface in just about every post you make.

Including the one I just quoted.

How do you know they never got the chance to compete?

Jake Delhomme was in New Orleans long before Brooks arrived. All Jake had to do was beat out the 2 \"Billy Joes\" and he didn\'t even do that. I suppose Haslett wasn\'t the only one that had a vendetta against Jake, cause Haslett wasn\'t even here yet.

Jake had 5 years worth of training camp and preseason games to show something that would get him on the field as a starter.

Jeff Blake. Give me a break, dude. The guy has been a starter in the league before he got to the Saints. He\'s had his fair share of opportunities. He\'s now a back-up and that\'s what he\'s going to remain.

saintswhodi · 02-07-2005, 02:51 PM

So it took Delhomme more than one year to develop is your reasoning? I guess the 49ers shoulda never gave a chance to Steve Young, he blew in Tampa Bay. Certainly the Raiders should never have given Gannon a shot. Why would Green Bay waste time with Favre? Maybe the Giants should have quit and not won a superbowl with Hostetler once Simms got hurt. Cause obviously by what you are saying, if you are a back-up, you can not play in the NFL. So maybe the Seahawks should give up those last two trips to the playoffs with Hasselbeck as the starter. Or maybe KC needs to give back Trent Green and their 13-3 record from last year. Or maybe the Rams can give up on bulger and his 12-4 record and division title from a year ago.

Jeff Blake was 7-4 HERE, I care nothing about what he did elsewhere. Steve Yougn and Tampa Bay were horrible, how did that work out for San Fran? Think they are happy they gave him a chance? Oh, I forgot Brunell from the Packers. Maybe Jacksonville should give up that trip to the AFC title game with him as their QB. Maybe the Rams should never have looked at Kurt Warner, being he was out of football and couldn;t cut it as a back-up elsewhere. Man.

[Edited on 7/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

saintswhodi · 02-07-2005, 02:56 PM

Also, still want to know where I said this.

I knew Delhomme and Bulger were gonna be great.

turbo_dog · 02-07-2005, 07:43 PM

You act as if you knew Delhomme and Bulger were great QBs when they were with the Saints. No one, and I mean no one, had anyway of knowing that. Now you want to sit here with your 20/20 hindsight and tell us how smart you were and how dumb the Saints were.
[Edited on 7/2/2005 by GumboBC]

Seems like the teams that signed them must have been soothsayers or just lucky by your reasoning.

[Edited on 8/2/2005 by turbo_dog]

GumboBC · 02-07-2005, 09:55 PM

Seems like the teams that signed them must have been soothsayers or just lucky by your reasoning.

When Carolina signed Delhomme, they had Rodney Peete as their starting QB. They needed to sign someone. And they signed Delhomme on the cheap.

Bulger was brougth to the Rams to be a back-up to Kurt Warner. And they signed Bulger on the cheap.

It\'s not like teams where beating down the door offering both of those guys huge contracts.

And Brooks was our starter and they simply didn\'t beat out Brooks. Some of you might not like that fact, but it\'s a fact just the same...

02-07-2005, 01:40 PM	#11
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	TSN Saints Report So what you are saying it 4 different teams who shipped ONE, I repeat ONE QB is similar to a team that in 4 years has released or traded FOUR different QBs, Blake(proven starter here), Bulger(proven starter elsewhere) Delhomme(proven starter elsewhere) and J.T. (we\'ll have to wait on that one)? That is your proof? Why do I even bother? :casstet: Oh, so you wanted me to give you a scenario EXACTLY like Delhomme and Bulger going else where. I\'m sorry, you should have said that in the first place, saintwhodi. I can\'t do that. But that wasn\'t what we were talking about. I believe it was you who suggested that Saints were somehow unique by letting Qbs get away and they went on to have success else where. I clearly showed you where that\'s not the case. I really don\'t know what else to say. I\'m out on this one...
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

02-07-2005, 01:52 PM	#12
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	TSN Saints Report Generally when someone asks for proof, they are looking for a similar situation. If I say a Ferrari goes 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, and then you say well the Pinto has a new engine, well yes both would be about CARS, which is the general subject, but unless you give a comparison to a car similar to a Ferrari, you are way off. I knew there wasn\'t any situations similar, that\'s why I asked for your proof, and I could have given your example before you did. The situation in New Orleans is unique to any other, possibly in NFL history. will have him shipped off, traded, or cut before he ever gets to show what he could do here. This denotes the fact that there is a HISTORY of this happening, which there is. If I felt all teams were the same, the statement would have read, \"Well, like every other NFL team\'s back-ups, he will be shipped off to start and be successful elsewhere.\" But like I said, why do I bother?

02-07-2005, 02:07 PM	#13
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	TSN Saints Report This is the only thing I have left to say on this subject, saintwhodi. Instead of bashing Haslett and co. for letting Delhomme and Bulger get away. How \'bout some praise for them actually signing back-ups as good as Bulger and Delhomme. How many teams do you know that have 2-back-ups good enough to start for other teams? You can\'t keep 3 starting QBs on your team. And if you think you can you are misguided!!! Delhomme or Bulger never showed us anything to make us think they could be better than what we had. Nothing!! Hell, we never even saw Bulger play. And Delhomme played very little. That\'s probably why Delhomme wasn\'t signed to a big contract when he signed with the Panthers. In fact, Delhomme was the back-up when he went to the Panthers. And Bulger was the back-up when he went to the Rams. I don\'t know what your deal is or what you are trying to prove. But.......IT\'S MISGUIDED. I have no problem placing blame where blame belongs. You act as if you knew Delhomme and Bulger were great QBs when they were with the Saints. No one, and I mean no one, had anyway of knowing that. Now you want to sit here with your 20/20 hindsight and tell us how smart you were and how dumb the Saints were. Great, you\'re the smart one and Halsett and co. are complete fools. And the salary cap prevents any team from stocking all those good players at every position. Your dissatisfaction with Brooks drives just about every thought you have about the Saints organization. And that\'s my final thought on this subject. I AM OUT!! [Edited on 7/2/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

02-07-2005, 02:12 PM	#14
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	TSN Saints Report ANALYSIS Positives: Well-proportioned athlete who knows how to manage an offense ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Has a quick setup, moving away from the center fluidly ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Displays a high release point and even though he\'s more comfortable in the pocket, he shows good improvisation skills on the move ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Touch passer with a good understanding of defensive coverage ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Has good poise in the pocket, rarely forcing his throws ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Shows solid timing and consistency on slants and fades, feathering the ball past the defenders so his receivers do not have to work to make the catch ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Can vary the speed on his passes and will step up and make the completion when his pocket collapses ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Scans the field quickly to spot his open target and has the body control to make defenders miss when on the move. Negatives: Does not have the arm strength or consistency to throw deep ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ His lack of ideal velocity causes his balls to flutter and die when throwing from the opposite hash mark ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Does not seem to throw across the body effectively, tending to go to a side-arm release on his deep throws ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ While he stands tall in the pocket, he does not have the lateral agility to escape when flushed out of the pocket or the quickness to gain much yardage past the line of scrimmage ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ Does not really drive the ball, as he puts too much air behind his long tosses ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ More of a short-area passer who is more comfortable operating from the shotgun rather than under center. This may be what they are referring to when they say he needs to get stronger. Of course several QB\'s had mediocre arm strength coming in. Montana, Pennington, Brees, Delhomme, Bulger, Brady (I think). Remember this scouting report is 2 or 3 years old so his arm strength may have improved significantly already. He may not be the next John Elway but I wouldn\'t call him a Danny Weurffel either. Wasn\'t he a Patriot last year?

02-07-2005, 02:23 PM	#15
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	TSN Saints Report Good one Gumbo. I knew how good Blake was, did you? He was 7-4. Is that proof to what he could do? And man are you way off. Show me where I EVER said I knew Delhomme and bulger were gonna be good. Do you have that proof? I know this, they never got the chance to compete. Obviously for someone to trade for Bulger he must have done something that made them want him huh? So let\'s see, fans call for Delhomme cause AB stinks so instead of letting him openly compete, they let him go elsewhere. Before any controversy could be started, let\'s get rid of Bulger. J.T. is a hometown boy so this will be another Delhomme situation( and it was already starting to be) let\'s trade him. Blake PROVED he could win here, but we wanna go with AB so let\'s give him his walking papers. See the difference? Who cares how I feel about AB when this is the team\'s track record? Also, I would praise Haslett and Co. if those players got a chance to COMPETE. They didn\'t. Noone wanted to ruffle the feathers of delicate Brooks so they were shown the door. Or are you gonna dispute that too when it says in recently published articles Brooks was McCarthy\'s project? His idea. His QB that he wanted. Read a little history man. So why don\'t YOU chastise Haslett and co. for not tapping into all this potential we had RIGHT HERE? So let me say again the specific proof I want, show me where I said I knew Delhomme and Bulger were gonna be good. anywhere at any point in any conversation on this forum or any other.

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

02-07-2005, 02:34 PM	#16
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	TSN Saints Report And man are you way off. Show me where I EVER said I knew Delhomme and bulger were gonna be good. Do you have that proof? I know this, they never got the chance to compete. Your dissatisfaction with Brooks really comes to the surface in just about every post you make. Including the one I just quoted. How do you know they never got the chance to compete? Jake Delhomme was in New Orleans long before Brooks arrived. All Jake had to do was beat out the 2 \"Billy Joes\" and he didn\'t even do that. I suppose Haslett wasn\'t the only one that had a vendetta against Jake, cause Haslett wasn\'t even here yet. Jake had 5 years worth of training camp and preseason games to show something that would get him on the field as a starter. Jeff Blake. Give me a break, dude. The guy has been a starter in the league before he got to the Saints. He\'s had his fair share of opportunities. He\'s now a back-up and that\'s what he\'s going to remain.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

02-07-2005, 02:51 PM	#17
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	TSN Saints Report So it took Delhomme more than one year to develop is your reasoning? I guess the 49ers shoulda never gave a chance to Steve Young, he blew in Tampa Bay. Certainly the Raiders should never have given Gannon a shot. Why would Green Bay waste time with Favre? Maybe the Giants should have quit and not won a superbowl with Hostetler once Simms got hurt. Cause obviously by what you are saying, if you are a back-up, you can not play in the NFL. So maybe the Seahawks should give up those last two trips to the playoffs with Hasselbeck as the starter. Or maybe KC needs to give back Trent Green and their 13-3 record from last year. Or maybe the Rams can give up on bulger and his 12-4 record and division title from a year ago. Jeff Blake was 7-4 HERE, I care nothing about what he did elsewhere. Steve Yougn and Tampa Bay were horrible, how did that work out for San Fran? Think they are happy they gave him a chance? Oh, I forgot Brunell from the Packers. Maybe Jacksonville should give up that trip to the AFC title game with him as their QB. Maybe the Rams should never have looked at Kurt Warner, being he was out of football and couldn;t cut it as a back-up elsewhere. Man. [Edited on 7/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

02-07-2005, 02:56 PM	#18
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	TSN Saints Report Also, still want to know where I said this. I knew Delhomme and Bulger were gonna be great.

02-07-2005, 07:43 PM	#19
turbo_dog 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Atlanta Posts: 1,592	TSN Saints Report You act as if you knew Delhomme and Bulger were great QBs when they were with the Saints. No one, and I mean no one, had anyway of knowing that. Now you want to sit here with your 20/20 hindsight and tell us how smart you were and how dumb the Saints were. [Edited on 7/2/2005 by GumboBC] Seems like the teams that signed them must have been soothsayers or just lucky by your reasoning. [Edited on 8/2/2005 by turbo_dog]

02-07-2005, 09:55 PM	#20
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	TSN Saints Report Seems like the teams that signed them must have been soothsayers or just lucky by your reasoning. When Carolina signed Delhomme, they had Rodney Peete as their starting QB. They needed to sign someone. And they signed Delhomme on the cheap. Bulger was brougth to the Rams to be a back-up to Kurt Warner. And they signed Bulger on the cheap. It\'s not like teams where beating down the door offering both of those guys huge contracts. And Brooks was our starter and they simply didn\'t beat out Brooks. Some of you might not like that fact, but it\'s a fact just the same...
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616