in case you missed it
 

tp writer john deshazier had a great article on the pats tuesday. here is the beautifully written crux for saints fans...

sure we all throw some stones now n then, but by n large it is devoted fans in this forum that only want to see those excuses weeded out.

in case you missed it
 

Holy crap. That is the crux of what I have been saying forever. Many, many fans of this team have settled for mediocrity and drunk the kool-aid that is being spewed. We don\'t need leaders, we don\'t need team players, so on and so forth. Well, New England is the anti-thesis of that argument and THEY ARE WINNERS, consistently, over and over, and now over again. Why teams don\'t follow the blue-print of a winning org and settle for mediocrity on the false hope a middling team can do the impossible is beyond me. Very nice find Kelley.

in case you missed it
 

New England has done something that no one thought was possible. They built a \"dynasty\" in the free-agent era.

Now there are folks who are wondering what the hell is wrong with the rest of the NFL teams. They say why not just follow the blue-print layed out by the Pats.

Well, that\'s a nice thought. But if only it were that easy.

First ... How many Bill Belichicks are out there?
Second ... Is it possible to clone Tom Brady?


Third... You can go from 8-8 to the super bowl. Which, somehow, the author of this article says is \"false\" hope.

In the past few years, I\'ve watched Carolina, Oakland, St. Louis, and Atlanta all go from 8-8, or worse, to the super bowl.

IMO, it isn\'t wise to think your team is going to duplicate New Englands success.

As far as the Saints goes ... No one is happy with mediocrity. But, I don\'t think anyone is thinking we can duplicate the Patriots either...

in case you missed it
 

Complete Biillshut. Its not mediocrity, its competitiveness. What exactly is mediocre about spreading out talent among all the teams. Yea, how about we let 3 or 4 teams draft 7 rounds 1st, then let everyone else get the scraps. Boy, you\'d have 4 really great teams huh?
Parity IS the best thing to ever happen to the NFL. It makes the games extremely competitive and entertaining to watch. I find his comment assinine.

Idiotic. A sham? How? I guess we should just let the 4 best teams play in the play-offs and if its only 2 really good teams we\'ll just skip the playoffs and go straight to the superbowl. Is there anything more exciting than an upstart cinderella team knocking off a contender in the playoffs. Atlanta over Green Bay, Carolina over Philly. New England over Oakland.
Lets just go back to 4 playoff teams. That\'ll eliminate this 9-7, 10-6 non-sense.

Yea, the 2003 Carolina fans must feel like complete morons. And the 2002 Falcon fans. And the 2001 New England fans. This guy is selling misery and the typical defeatist Saints fan is lappin it up with a side of gravy.

I don\'t recall anyone preaching \"over and over\" that a bounce or two would turn them into New England. Who the hell is he talking about? Oh thats right, \"they\" doesn\'t really exist, except in the mind of the uninformed. Oh, but wait a minute, I thought dynasties were dead in his awful world of \"mediocrity\". What an bunch of self pity BS. At least he\'s targeting the right fan-base.

Lets look at what this guy calls a bunch of 8-8 mediocrity.
Great teams, 13 - 16 wins (3 Teams)
Good teams, 10-12 wins (6 teams)
Average teams, 7-9 wins (11 teams, 4 finished 8-8)
Bad teams, 4 to 6 wins (11 teams)
Horrible teams, 3 wins or less (1 team)

So what it boils down to is...

Above average teams - 9
Average teams - 11
Below average teams -12

Uhh, how are these results much different from the glorious dynasty era? Kinda looks like 1/3 are good, 1/3 are average, and 1/3 are bad. You\'d think by his comments that we had 2 great teams, 2 bad teams and 28 average teams. Oh yeah, I forgot...Woe is me, I\'m a miserable Saints fan and its all parity\'s fault. Boooo Fricking Hooooo. Cry me a flipping black and gold river, loser!

in case you missed it
 

I\'m going to have to go with Danno on this one.

in case you missed it
 

Anger much? It seems like SOMEONE is always being called an idiot in your posts Danno. I don\'t know if you haven\'t noticed, but we are the EXACT mediocre team that has been fed this EXACT mediocre BS over and over and over. How many times in this \"parity\" gotten us into the playoffs? Or Detroit? Or Arizona? Or the Bengals? Or the Dolphins? Or on and on and on? You see the same teams in the playoffs yearly and there may be one expection here or there. Now I for one do not long for the old days of a few teams owning everything, but like you said, does it seem much different?

What he is saying is mediocre teams, like us, who don\'t really wanna make changes to actually get better, like us, can lay on parity as a reason to make minor instead of major changes? Did we fire Haslett?did we fire Venturi? Did we get a new OC? Have we ever done jackity crap but look like fools in free agency? These are the exact changes he is talking about mediocre teams making and selling the fans, look at Atlanta, look at Carolina, look at Tampa Bay, but Tampa Bay has been to the NFC champ game not too long before their SB victory. Atlanta went to a Superbowl late 90s. Carolina was in an NFC champ game their second year out the block. Patriots went to a Superbowl under Parcells and were already becoming winners. For teams who have not enjoyed success, parity is the boot on their neck by the owners keeping fans in line while doing nothing. I see it has already been bought into too. Nice marketing NFL. No wonder you are the best and most successful sport in the world.

in case you missed it
 

I don\'t get this. Why do people keep saying that people don\'t want to make changes to get better? I don\'t really see it. If you owned a team, would you want it to be a winner? Hell, yeah. Are NFL owners so unlike you and I in their mentality? I\'d doubt it. They want to win too.

Here is another way of view the lack of \"big changes\": due to parity, each team is really only 2-5 guys from going to the big dance each year. If you can get those guys cheap for long periods of time, you can keep going to the big dance (prime example, the Patriots). Thus, what you should do is make small changes that have big payoffs (we just haven\'t had any of our gambles pay off). Why make big changes that could be quite expensive, giving you one, maybe two shots, then back to the drawing board?

The problem isn\'t people not wanting to win. The problem is people being convinced that they are not too far away and wanting to be there as often as possible.

Ok, it is just a theory, but it doesn\'t sound stupid to me.

in case you missed it
 

I must say, I kind of miss those good \'ole days before free agency watered down the NFL. In theory, it sounded like a great idea, but what has it really gotten us? The dynasty teams eventually gave way to other teams. How did those teams hoarde all those great players? Who picked them, who made them work? C\'mon, basically what free agency did was insure the quality of players and coaches were going to decline. Everyone is now living by the \"show me the money\" philosophy and if you don\'t win today, you\'re gone tomorrow. And now players coming out of college are insured a bundle of money a team can scarecly afford to part with and the return is MAYBE a player lives up to the hype.. At least in the old days consistency was the norm. Can you say the same for today\'s NFL? I guess you can label me \'Old School\' . Don\'t get me wrong, free agency is a good thing as long as there are ways to ensure teams aren\'t decimated year after year. And yes, we have been sold a bill of goods by Benson and company, but I, like so many, am not buying the goods because I believe the BS . It is because I am a Saint\'s fan, it\'s in my blood, it\'s a part of my being. It will be a part of my son\'s heritage and it will be in his blood. So, no matter what, I\'ll always be rooting with the now infamous battle cry of the Saints, \"just wait \'till next year!\" But don\'t insult my intelligence, Mr. Benson, because I know for a fact, my football knowledge is far greater than what you\'ll ever hope to achieve. So please, run this team like you want a championship and not like you are trying to sell cars. Ahhhh....I feel much better now...

in case you missed it
 

I dig whay you are saying Kool, but I think that is the exact point of the article. You and prob many other fans probably feel we are one or two moves away from being Cinderella, and that\'s what the org and the revenue sharing NFL want you to believe because it keeps fans in the stands whether their team is terrible, mediocre or great. Owners sit back fat and happy. I am never of the opinion an owner doesn\'t WANNA win, but if you make money regardless, why spend more? Find me if you can 3 other teams in the league that haven\'t been to the playoffs the last 4 years and kept their coaches, and 3 teams that had the worst defenses in the league and kept their defensive coordinators. That is us. But parity has a lot of people believing we are this free agent or this draft pick from winning it all. Not likely.

in case you missed it
 

There was very little thought put in to that aricle, IMO.

First, while the Pats have won 3 super bowls in the past 4 years. They are not that much better than a lot of other teams.

In the days when dynasties ruled, teams like the Cowboy\'s and 49\'ers were blowing teams out. The Pats, while they find a way to win just about every week, are not blowing teams out. In other words, they aren\'t head above heels better than a bunch of teams.

In fact, it is parity itself that has allowed the Pats to become a dynasty.

If the Pats lost a couple of \"key\" players, like Tom Brady, they would probably quickly sink to the level of mediocrity themselves.

So, if the Pats are only a couple of players away from mediocrity ... Why can\'t teams be a couple of players away from contneding?

Team do it all the time. They might not stay there like the Pats. But they get there just the same.



[Edited on 10/2/2005 by GumboBC]

in case you missed it
 

Its because idiots impersonating writers angers me enough to comment.

What BS are you specfically referring to?

Parity (or the absense of it) has had nothing to do with us not making the playoffs. Bad coaching, bad player development, bad personnell decisions etc are the reasons we, and those other teams, don\'t make the playoffs. Show me where parity has hurt or helped us. Show me where we said \"over and over\" that we were a bounce or two from being the New England Patriots. Explain to me how winning the last week and making the playoffs is \"the worst kind of sham\".
I disagree. We have tried year after year to get better. the problem isn\'t we aren\'t trying, its just that we made the wrong decisions. And how have we lay\'d on parity?
Minor changes? This was the 1st year we didn\'t make major changes.
After Haz\'s 1st season, major changes.
2nd season, drastic changes,
3rd season, major overhaul
4th season, decided to try continuity.


Again, how can you say we do nothing. We do plenty. If you want to argue results, I\'m right there with you. But our failures have nothing to do with the concept of parity. And I don\'t understand how owners use parity to keep fans in line. What do you mean by \"in line\"? I\'ve heard nothing but outrage from the vast majority of Saints fans. The only time I hear fans defending this underachieving team is when someone points out an obvious problem with an overweight out-of-shape injury prone former all-pro RB.
But I don\'t know, maybe I\'m the idiot and no one has had the heart to inform me of it yet.

in case you missed it
 

benson wasnt even a football fan in his 50\'s when he bought the team. he is notoriously tightwad among all nfl owners. those two facts i do not think anyone will dispute. i think he lacks basic football instincts. so he might latch onto a talented person like a finks or mueller but just as likely go with a ditka, mueller, or loomis, he doesnt know the diff. everyone wants to win but is self evident that the passion for that burns deeper in some owners than others. wacky personalities or not no one doubts this with a jerry jones, wayne huizenga, dan snyder, or al davis, etc. i dont get that from benson. why was there more salary money left on the table in new orleans last year than any other team by far? if it didnt come from the top then the top should have cleaned house. no owner has a sweeter deal with the state/city than benson and he wants more. it isnt the biggest market in the league but it is run tighter than any other. his 70mil investment is now worth 500+mil, he has given it a 20 year shot and is 76 yrs old. he wasn\'t even aware that saban was being courted by miami remember. i wonder if he knew who saban was?

there is no issue about parity and the cap philosophically. it is when an owner within the system who is more concerned with the bottom line than winning can milk a city and state financially and (in louisiana fo sho) emotionally. read the whole article. it is not an attack against the premise of salary caps and parity but rather the owners who take advantage of it. i am very patient but am tired of the same excuses. there is something terribly wrong for a venturi to still be employed. (a great line i read elsewhere said \"even j.d. roberts was better than him\" LOL).

in case you missed it
 

youare definitely not an idiot Danno, it was just an observation. Point by point response.

1. The BS I am referring to is, we can win with Ruff. We can win with Dale Carter. We can win with Venturi as our coordinator. From Haslett. From Benson, I believe we can win with Haslett, yet we haven\'t. That\'s all BS.

2. You missed the point on that one. If bad coaching is a problem, why did we keep Haslett and Venturi? Cause parity and the promise of a better tomorrow will keep the Superdome seats full. You don\'t have to fire bad coaches when you can show your fans how horrible the NFC was this year, and get them to buy you being the next Cinderella. An owner doesn\'t have to take the financial hit of firing a head coach like Benson would have had to, cause the NFL makes fans believe we all have a shot no matter what. And if you are mediocre, as we are, then Oh boy you are right on the cusp. Yeah right.

3. I do not see where we have tried to get better year after year. You may have to explain that one to me. Where has this team tried to get better? I have heard where they SAID we were gonna be better cause of this no name guy or that no name guy, and I never believed it. You are gonna have to explain them trying to get better to me. Like I said above, parity allows us to believe the team when they say the Orlando Ruffs are the key.

4. Yes fans EXPRESS outrage, but do they still go to the games? Hell yeah they do. That\'s parity. The ANY GIVEN SUNDAY mantra. The your team can be the one that comes from nowhere ideal. The everyone is basically even ideal. THAT is BS. And it is being fed to fans by owners of mediocre and bad teams, like ours, to keep us tuning in and filling the dome. And like I said, it has worked.

[Edited on 10/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

in case you missed it
 

we should have brought in Eric Mangini

in case you missed it
 

True football fans don\'t buy tickets because their team is winning. True football fans but tickets because they love their team. Whether that team is winning or losing.

How else does anyone explain still being a Saints fan?

The superdome reagularly sold out when we had never won a playoff game. And it still sells out despite our record.

No Saints\' fan likes losing. But we stick with them. We keep hope.

I\'d love to have a Saints\' dynasty. But, I\'d settle for one of those magic runs made by teams such as the Panthers, Falcons, or Raiders. It still counts.

If someone wants to not support the team. That\'s their business.

I\'ll still be thinking playoffs come week 1. I\'m not in to giving up....

Oh, we complain like hell, but we\'re still here. And, the true fans aren\'t going anywhere. We\'ll still buy tickets.

in case you missed it
 

In truth...We aren\'t a product of a failed design..at least not by the League\'s Free Agency design...

Free Agency works..it can turn pretenders..to contenders...and very quickly...with the right guys calling the shots...

We just don\'t have the guys we need running the show...and..we will fail...

The best thing that could ever happen to this team is...A middle aged guy with money, ego and an attitude..walks up and buys the team...a cocky..self rightoeus rich brat...who doesn\'t want to lose..and wants to be respected....and is willing to lay down the cash his family left him..in order to get it...

Instead of a washed up old sack...who is pi**ed off cuz he\'s old...and his team sucks...and he just wants to leave a thorn in the side of the State before he goes...and set up his precious grand daughter with loads of stolen money..and that\'s what it is...we have been betrayed....and sold on a false premise that this team will compete..when deep down..we know better...because..we have learned...from years of the same old cr*p..at least..I have learned..i can\'t speak for all of you..

It\'s not the coaches..it\'s not the players..and it damn sure isn\'t us...Benson has sold this team down the river...

I know I sound dumb...I am just mad as he**..It seems like ..we never get ahead..and then with this ****** LA thing breathing down our neck like a Bull in heat...it\'s just too much to bear sometimes...

Honestly..I wouldn\'t care if we went 1-15...if we, at the very least, knew that there infact would be a next year to look forward to...

Benson owes us more than that...dangling our loyalty above a pit of fire...we aren\'t mindless drones..It\'s just a total lack of respect for us...it\'s a slap in the face...I pray for the day Benson leaves...

Sell...Stay...do it now...you sorry @** old terd...

in case you missed it
 

shasow-i think most people think along the same lines...we want to win..and even if it means loosing in the short term-they are tired of the same old crap.

in case you missed it
 

..few quick comments...

... I believe the writer meant an 8-8 team reaching the playoffs and going to the SB that same year, not a team that was 8-8 this year going to the SB next year...

... the Pats are head and shoulders above everyone else...

... I think, in a country of 250,000,000+, you can find 1,500 good football players, so I don\'t believe in the \"diluted talent\" argument....

... this past year there was indeed a high number of .500 teams looking at playoffs in the NFC, but if you look at the past playoff races, this past year was more the exception rather than the rule...

... the best thing that can happen to the Saints is Daniel Snyder??????

in case you missed it
 

baron, you will be surprised to find you are in the minority in that argument. A LOT of people here refuse to accept losing in the short term may be a part of getting better in the long term cause parity and the NFL have told them, if you are 8-8 now, and get that one stud free agent and one stud draft pick, you can be the surprise team of the up-coming season. I mean if you are 8-8, pretty much every year, you must be close right? ;)

in case you missed it
 

How does that work?

While I don\'t think this is exactly right, I agree with the sentiment. Players are bigger, faster, stronger, and have better coaching at an earlier age these days. The league isn\'t getting \"washed out\"; it is the case that \"in the good old days\" there were fewer great players, mediocre players were even more mediocre, etc. Thus, teams with a handful of players who were great could control the game.

We did try to get better every year (even last year we drafted a pair of LBs who ended up being the starters); we just haven\'t succeeded in getting better enough (excuse the poor grammar, but you know what I\'m getting at). Just because you \"don\'t see it\", doesn\'t mean that wasn\'t what was attempted. Danno gave some examples, and they sound like efforts that didn\'t pan out.

On the parity and Benson point, it sounds to me like a conspiracy theory (where is 08 when you need him). The idea you guys seem to be pushing is that Benson doesn\'t want to win and he can hide behind parity. Well, I offered a different explanation: he does want to win and for a number of years. Free Agency requires one to make shrewd moves to get good players (pick up guys like Horn, Glover, or Knight) on the cheap who can produce for a long time. Of coruse, when you try to do that sometimes you get Ruffs.

I challenge you to find the evidence that shows the difference between this theory I just made up (want to win + FA) and the current popular view (doesn\'t want to win + Parity). I bet those roughly cover the data the same.

I understand that people blame Benson (and I can understand that), but I\'d be careful of saying he doesn\'t want to win. I just don\'t see how one can believe that with such vigor.

Finally,
There is NO ONE here who doesn\'t want our boys to win. If you guys really buy into this Parity stuff, which you appear to, there is no need to lose in the short run. We should just be able to go out and buy the guys we need to win. If you don\'t buy into parity, then stop complaining about it.

There is more to say here, but I\'m going to stop here for now.

in case you missed it
 

I can see from this Kool you are not understanding the actual complaint about parity. But I will speak for myself. I never said I was for or against parity, I said parity is a useful tool for mediocre owners to sell crap moves and false attempts at getting better to fans, and having them believe it. How is that being for or against it? It is good because in theory, everyone DOES have a chance. In actuality though, it allows owners like Benson not to fire Haslett or require he dump Venturi or to spend in free agency.

The argument of losing in the short run has been made by myself and others several times, before this parity discussion even happened. I don\'t see how they tie in. Those ADVOCATING parity, such as yourself, feel as though at 8-8, we are on the brink, and that\'s cool. Why should those who feel it allows owners to hold teams back not be able to complain about it? That statement was very confusing to me.

So let me summarize. I am not for or against parity, it is both good and bad. Parity has nothing to do with how I feel about losing. You feel where we are at, 8-8 is enough with a few moves, I feel where we are at 8-8 is smoke and mirrors. And parity allows the smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that we have an owner who is basically doing nothing and wanting to sell it to us as steps in the right direction, \"Cause on any given Sunday.....\"

in case you missed it
 

Whodi,

The last sentence of my post that you quoted was confusing, even to me. I don\'t know what I meant there. Apologies.

Also, I am familiar with your desire for the team to lose so that we will get better. The other side doesn\'t want us to NOT get better; that side just thinks you CAN get better without losing. I have made that argument many times (just as you have made the counter argument many times).

Here is the argument that I made twice here that you appear to want to address (just ignore that other carp I said):

Sure, owners could hide behind parity, but it is not obvious to me how one could be so sure that is what is going on in our case.

I understand how the part I said at the end, which you so nicely quoted, was confusing (apologies for getting off track there). However, it is awfully unkind of you to point out how \"I don\'t understand\", when I understood just fine (see quoted argument).

in case you missed it
 

I didn\'t mean to say you didn\'t understand as you being dumb or anything, which I KNOW is FAR FAR from the truth. I just felt maybe our wires were getting crossed about how I felt. My apologies. As you have now yourself said it was confusing to you also, I can pass it off as a temporary moment of insanity. ;) But at any rate, it wasn\'t meant as a slight, just a means to kick off my explanation.

I can see your point, but if we are a victim to bad moves over and over and over, how does an owner who does nothing to correct this just stand pat year after year after year? If I worked for Carmax, and the cars I bought from customers were lemons over and over and over and they didn\'t pan out and we couldn\'t sell them, wouldn\'t Carmax fire me? Whoever is making these decisions should have been fired, Haslett shoudl have been fired, Venturi should have been fired, Loomis should have been moved but we got NONE of that. SO as there may be SOME bad luck in free agency, year after year after year? So the owner who does not correct the person making these decisions does not seem like he wants to win to me, and is hiding behind this parity to justify doing nothing.

in case you missed it
 

OK Whodi, lets see, these are things we\'ve done to TRY and get better. You can easily dismiss them because many didn\'t pan out, but you can\'t say they didn\'t TRY.

Traded 2 picks and Signed Tebuckey Jones to huge contract to TRY and improve the FS position, most think we overpaid to get him..
Signed Wayne Gandy to TRY and improve the O-line, most think we overpaid to get him.
Signed Dale Carter to TRY and improve CB position, most think we overpaid to get him.
Signed David Sloan to TRY to improve the TE position, most think we overpaid to get him.
Signed Ernie Conwell to TRY and improve the TE position, most think we overpaid to get him.
Signed Bryan Young to TRY and improve the DT position, most think we overpaid to get him.
Signed Norman Hand to TRY and improve versus the run, most think we overpaid to get him.
Signed Grady Jackson to TRY and improve versus the run, most think we overpaid to get him.
Signed Freddy Thomas to huge contract to TRY and keep our talent, most now think we overpaid to keep him.
Traded TWO 1st round picks to TRY and land an answer in the middle.
Released Grady Jackson to TRY and improve team chemistry.
Traded for a high priced CB, Mike McKenzie to TRY and improve our CB\'s.
Traded Rickey Williams for draft picks to TRY and hand the keys to Deuce.
TRIED to trade up this year to land Jonathan Vilma.
TRIED to trade up last year to land Chris Simms.
Signed AB to huge contract after he showed promise his 1st year.
Franchised Darren Howard despite the fact he was proving to be injury prone.
Drafted Deuce McAllister, instead of a popular \"need\" position.
Drafted Will Smith, instead of a popular \"need\" position.
Built a state of the art indoor practice facility to TRY and improve training camp efficiencies.
Hired a proven D-line coach to TRY and help the D-line improve.
Fired and Hired a WR coach to TRY and improve our WR\'s.
Let McCarthy walk to TRY and improve the OC position.

All the things I listed above were done to TRY and improve this team. While the results haven\'t been nearly as successful as we hoped, the effort is definitely there. I think too many are focusing on the few things we haven\'t done. Fire Haz, fire Venturi, sign 6 new LB\'s, etc.


[Edited on 10/2/2005 by Danno the idiot]

[Edited on 10/2/2005 by Danno]

in case you missed it
 

Benson makes all personnel moves by proxy through Loomis since Loomis has to run everything by him first.

Parity didn\'t water down the NFL. That was expansion. The same amount of talent exists. It is just spread among more teams.

Also, parity isn\'t the tool the owners are using against the \"gullible\" fans. The tool is free agency. It wouldn\'t matter how close the teams are matched, if a team came through a season and nearly made the playoffs, the owner and staff would say a couple of free agents moves are all that is needed. The gullible fan would buy into it too, but parity makes it more believable because parity makes it more true.

We couldn\'t have free agency without the salary cap or there\'d be no parity at all. The NFL would be more like (although much more interesting) MLB. Parity is good. I bet you\'ll find there have been half as many blowout superbowls since 1995 as there have been in the 10 years previous to \'95. That\'s parity.

I disagree with the author that parity is the problem. We have hope for a better next year because we always have. Maybe some fans are tricked into believing it is more possible by the org, but I think the intelligent fan, of which there are more than the author probably knows, comes to the conclusion that next year can be better because of the realities of the NFL and free agency, plus the draft.

in case you missed it
 

I see your point, but look at mine. The person who is making these decisions that didn\'t work out should have been fired right? You can TRY all you want, but the results are wins right? You are right in the fact that I look at what happened with players who were brought in, and not just the fact we were bringing people in. You also forgot Orlando Ruff. ;) So here\'s my rebuttal. Of all those you listed, how many have panned out? How many were highly sought free agenct and how many were re-treads and cast offs? Mostly all were the latter. So if more than 70% of your decisions have not panned out, shouldn\'t the person responsible be gone? I highly doubt it was McCarthy. So if you are in a position to continually make bad decisions, and your owner does nothing, how does that show he is trying to win? Seems like he is using parity to say \"Yeah my guys made a bunch of bad decisions, but I am not firing anyone cause we can win like anyone else in the NFL, it has happened to other teams recently.\" Again, see my CarMax example I posted to JKool.

in case you missed it
 

Benson wil not fire himself, Whodi. That\'s where the problem is. He is perfectly content with the staff because they cowtail to him. When somebody steps out and makes a move that looking back now was one of the best moves in Saints history (trading Ricky) that person gets fired for not getting Benson\'s stamp of approval.

in case you missed it
 

That\'s my point Scotty. Exactly. Benson doesn\'t care about wins and losses. He cares that the NFL pushing parity will get butts in the seats. He cares that occasionally a team comes from nowhere and does something good, fans here will believe we can be that team next year, or the next year, or the next year. He has a money making machine. If there were NO cinderella stories, and NO teams came out of nowhere to win anything, does anyone honestly believe we would buy into this one or two more guys or let\'s give the coaching staff another year stuff? Hell no. We would be wondering why the hell someone else keeps winning and not us. But our old buddy parity says, \"Hey, don\'t feel like that. You can win like anyone else, no matter how little ownership does to actually improve your team. Everyoen is bad in the NFL, we are all even. There is no difference between you and the Pats that another off-season of new names with little talent can\'t fix. Wanna get high?\"

in case you missed it
 

Don\'t confuse results with trying. I mentioned that 10 times.
You said we weren\'t trying. We are trying, we just suck at it.

So you\'re basing your comment \"I don\'t see where we tried\" on the fact that Benson hasn\'t fired the GM or Coach, or DC. OK, well you should have said that. I didn\'t read it that way.
Benson did fire Meuller, who was responsible for a lot of those mistakes.
Benson did hire Riprish to help run the draft.
Benson did hire someone to help Lil\' Rickie with his defense.
I\'m not defending their results, I\'m defending their effort, which I believe you were calling out.
Benson wants to win, he just doesn\'t have a clue how to.

in case you missed it
 

(1) No one forgot Ruff:
(2) I will now add this to my \"theory\": Want to win long term + FA + unclear how personnel decisions are made is as good as Don\'t want to win + Parity.

In this case, opinion appears to me to be acceptable, since I don\'t think we can easily distinguish these two accounts of what is going on.

Until an account of how people get hired and fired in this regime gets cleared up (and I doubt it will for us fans anyway), then the Carmax example is unclear as to its success in suggesting which theory is right.

in case you missed it
 

The fact that Benson sticks with guys he likes (if that is true) does not show that he does not want to win. That view is underdetermined by this view: Benson DOES want to win, he just is a bad judge of who can win (or we\'re poor judges of whether those guys can win, take your pick on that last one).

in case you missed it
 

Then my question is, he has been an NFL owner how long? How the hell does he not know HOW to win? HE talks to other owners ALL THE TIME. They have meetings and such. You mean to tell me he can\'t ask advice from any of them or simply follow their example? I find that hard to believe. We won under Mora. We won the first year Haz was here. Then Mueller gets fired, and it seems like the care for winning is gone. I know it\'s an opinion kool, but I refuse to believe anyone who has been as owner as long as Benson still doesn\'t know how to differentiate between a winner and a loser. We have been mediocre to losers. You mean to tell me he can\'t do the same thing I do and look at the roster of failed attempts to get better and determine a course of action so he stands pat? I don\'t believe that. I am sticking to CarMax. ;)

in case you missed it
 

Danno this is what I said initially:

So I knew we were bringing guys in, and that they weren\'t panning out. SO I think I have been saying what I meant all along.

in case you missed it
 

Three possible adjustments:

(1) Go with \"we\'re poor judges of who can win\"
(2) Benson wants to win AND enjoy his ownership experience. Sometimes those are at odds.
(3) We don\'t really understand how personnel decisions are getting made, and Benson is making the best moves he can given his limited Football knowledge.

Those all sound plausible - none of them require that Benson doesn\'t want to win.

in case you missed it
 

I guess, but so as not to waste your time, I do not have the belief his ultimate goal is winning. I think he is simply happy to make money and if winning happens along the way, so be it. But I have considered your points.

in case you missed it
 

Whodi, I never consider my time wasted here (since I can chose what to read, to whom to I respond, and so on).

I respect your view. My point was just that given the many live competing views, it is unclear that one should be convinced that Benson does not want to win. If someone holds that view, it is very much acceptable to me, but it is certainly not well justified (since there are numerous possibilities that cannot be ruled out that compete with it). Thus, it should not be used as a central premise in arguments - e.g. the reason we suck is because Benson doesn\'t want to win.

in case you missed it
 

That\'s why they are opinions Kool. We mainly base our arguments on here on assumptions we have drawn based on the facts of each situation we discuss and the opinions we formulated. Correct? So it is no more justified for someone to take the opposite view of mine, cause either could be right. So basically the central premise of just about any argument on here is one of these OPINIONS. True? So why is it unfair for me to use my opinion as a central premise when everyone here does the same? Including yourself buddy. You draw conclusions from what you see and argue those conclusions do you not? Same thing. ;)

in case you missed it
 

This is exactly the camp that I fall in with. I think all of you guys have made interesting points, but the results don\'t lie. Yes, we have signed some FA\'s over the year, but any big-names in that group? They tend to try to address the weaknesses, but not at any expense. It just appears to me that every decision seems to be made with how much we will have to pay the person as a major part of the decision.

As far as paying for tickets being one of the requirements to be a Saint fan, then, I guess I quit being a Saint fan many years ago. I still watch, or listen, with the same spirit as always, but not from the stands. I have not made a conscious effort to boycott the stadium, it is just something that has happened over the last few years when I started subconciously realizing that I am not getting my money\'s worth in return. Lately, it has gotten so bad that I didn\'t even bother to get the dish this year. (Not living in the area for the last few years, that was the only way I could see them on a weekly basis.) I kinda took a wait-and-see attitude, and, I guess I am still waiting. If that makes me not a true Saint fan, then I guess I am guilty as heck. But, somehow, in my heart, I doubt it.

in case you missed it
 

Whodi,

Sometimes opinions are all we have, but other times not. This is why people make use of observations (e.g. I saw Brooks smiling after that interception) and stats (e.g. Brooks leads the league in red zone turnovers). Those are NOT merely opinions.

My point wasn\'t that you aren\'t entitled to your opinion - it was that opinions make for poor central premises (since all someone has to do is disagree with that opinion). Unlike observations or stats - it would be plain dumb to say \"Brooks did not lead the league in red zone turnovers\" because he did. That person would simply be wrong.

My point was this: in the case of Benson\'s desire to win, we have no stats or observations that can help pick between the different positions presented (between you and I anyway) above. Thus, you cannot conclude that he doesn\'t want to win. I\'m NOT saying he does want to win; I\'m just saying that we don\'t have access to the kind of evidence that could decide that - UNLIKE statistical evidence, observational evidence, and so on.

I agree with you on this: if someone said, \"Benson does want to win, damn it\", they would be no more justified than you.

I certainly wasn\'t singling YOU out with this comment. I\'m sorry if I made you feel that way.

in case you missed it
 

I get what you are saying Kool and that\'s right on. On a position such as what someone\'s desires are, we only have opinion unless they tell us otherwise. But in this instance, since this whole argument is based on opinion, I felt free to allow anyone to argue whatever position they felt whether it be opinion or not cause there is no way we can KNOW, in this instance. Otherwise, you know I keep my facts tight. ;)

LB, I am with you. I don\'t live in the area, but used to go to a Sports bar weekly to catch my boys. Not anymore. Unless I am going with some friends, I wait for the highlights. I still see about 10-12 games, but not every one like I normally did. And of course if they are in the area, like when they played Dallas, I will go, but I am not breaking my neck to pay a cover for a team I don\'t feel is committed to getting better.