Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

On this board I've read several posts that criticized the promotion of Mike Sheppard to offensive coordinator. I've yet to figure out why some folks are so critical of this move. Sheppard coached the 3rd ranked offense in Balitmore. He coached the 13th ranked offense in Buffalo.

Can someone give me a GOOD argument as to why you think Sheppard won't succeed in New Orleans? It seems to me that there is no GOOD arguement, it just wasn't the guy some of you wanted and it pisses you off?

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

The only reason I can think of is that he\'s not Charlie Weiss.

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

I think you\'re on to something there, Danno.

It\'s one thing to be negative. But, it\'s another thing not to back it up.

If anyone has half a brain, they know there\'s folks on this board who are going to bash any move that is made by Haslett and co.... To each their own, I suppose.

But I hear folks, who claim to be \"objective\" (or realists) that make statements and NEVER back them up.

Here\'s your chance folks. Here\'s your chance to show us how smart you are.

Give me your reasons as to why you think Sheppard won\'t be successful here in New Orleans?

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

i\'m hopeful. a seriously simpler playbook can only be good for ab. we\'ll probably see in game one if they are a couple of those mid first quarter time outs cuz they play couldnt be got off in time.

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

...it is actually VERY simple...

...it means NO CHANGE... it means STATUS QUO... what happened 9 years ago in Baltimore or in Buffalo 4 years ago has no bearing on the current Saints situation... not only that, but this is a move to cleary retain Brooks\' comfort zone...

... the Saints are going to end with basically the same players, basically the same coaches calling the same plays, and the same front office...

.. guess I should be \"optimistic\".. maybe in 2005 the Panthers will again be decimated by injuries, the Bucks would still suck, and Vick could get hurt...

..the law of averages says that your number eventrually comes up.. in the case of the Saints, it means eventually all teams will be as mediocre as they are and then they\'ll have a chance to do something, maybe that\'s what the Saints are counting on for next season; unfortunately, that was last year, and they couldn\'t capitalize...




[Edited on 18/2/2005 by Tobias-Reiper]

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

Gator -- At least you\'re honest. And I can absolutely see your point. I think you don\'t neccesarily have a problem with Sheppard, you just want other changes made? Good post Gator.

Tobias-Reiper -- That wasn\'t a good arguement at all.

No change? And you know this how? Give us something other than \"that\'s how I feel.\"

The success Shepard had in the past has no bearing on the current Saints\' situation? Going by that logic, I suppose getting Charlie Weiss would have made no difference? What the heck are tawkin\' bout? I don\'t get it!!

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

Is it just me, or are these fighting words?


Oh, so that IS the whole purpose of this forum....for people to have an outlet to put their intelligence on display. I have often wondered if that was what some people were trying to do. You may recall me using the term, \"dazzle us with b/s.\"
That was just a colloquial way of saying, \"show us how smart you are.\"

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

If you\'re one of those folks who criticize every move Haslett and co. make, then I was indeed talking to you. If not, then I was talking to someone else.

I\'m a Saints fan. I come here to hear objective opinions on the Saints. I don\'t come here to read we suck and we\'re always going to suck.

So, if what I said are fighting words ... then ... start swinging, my man ... :P

I\'d like to think the purpose of this board is to talk Saints\' football. But, even more than that, I\'d like to think we have guys here who look at things objectively. Saying we suck and we\'re always gonna suck is ... well .... you figure it out.

It isn\'t very insightful, to say the least.

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

..you know, you are really, really good for comic relief...

... but I\'ll play, it\'s amusing..

.. Charlie Weiss would have made a DIFFERENCE because he would have brought HIS PLAYBOOK with him, whereas Sheppard is going to use the SIMPLIFIED MCCARTHY\'s PLAYBOOK ( or, as it is now known around the league, QB\'ng for Dummies)... Sheppard may bring a few proverbial wrinkles here and there, but no real change... no infusion of new blood, new perspective..

... how do I know that the Saints are going to have basically the same coaches? How many coaches are in the Saints coaching staff? How many left? How many came in? There, basically no change in the coaching staff..

..players, a couple will go, a couple will come, a few will be drafted (3 of them who\'ll never see the playing field)...

..anyone left/ got fired in the front office? At all?

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

You\'re one of those guys who I have a hard time understanding.

Let\'s examine some of your brilliance!!

I respect the fact that you have an opinion. I respect that fact that you posts those opinions. But, it sounds more like you hold a grudge rather than bringing something that someone can take seriously.



Do you really expect me to take posts like that serious. Tell me ONE play in that playbook?

ATTACK? # 2- WHO CARES?

[Edited on 18/2/2005 by JOESAM2002]

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

QB sneak! :D

I know you weren\'t talking to me, but, I just couldn\'t resist. If you would like for me to explain how that one works, I will be glad to do so!

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

The only thing I\'ve heard is that our offense is going to be the same under Sheppard as it was under McCarthy.

What was wrong with McCarthy\'s PLAYBOOK?

Was the PLAYBOOK the problem, or was it the PLAY-CALLING?

I don\'t get some of you guys.

For one, I\'ve never heard ONE person here say that McCarthy\'s playbook was the problem. All I\'ve heard anyone say is that McCarthy\'s play calling was predictable.

Now, all of a sudden, some of you want to say the plays were disigned poorly?

According to some, there ain\'t a damn thing about anything you like.

Playbook sucks.
Play calling sucks.
Coach sucks.
QB sucks.
defense sucks.
Saints sucks.

I think some of the fans suck...LMAO!!

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

What is there to like. 37(38, whichever) years, ONE playoff win. Wooo f--king Hoooo!!

Very accurate observation.


I wouldn\'t touch this one with a ten-foot pole.



[/quote:ec877adc46]

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

... now I know why they keep you around... you are a freaking riot...

..lemme explain you a couple of things here...

... because YOU say something is a FACT, it doesn\'t make it so...

... a football playbook actually comes with lil\' drawings of the plays, you know? .. so it really isn\'t that hard to read, you know?...

... want me to tell you one play? How about 2? or 3? Or 10? .. it doesn\'t matter... how would you know whether is there or not, anyway? Oh, wait, yes, you are the only person in the whole wide world who actually has the Saints playbook, right?(could be so, the Saints surely play like it.).. or is it that you want me to get in that lil\' game you got going on the \"defensive scheme\" thread when you explained this so-called \"change in scheme\" with 3 situational plays (man to man vs zone, shooting the gaps vs holding them, etc...)?

..keep up the good work...


had to go and edit because I forgot one thing, this lil\' link to a Times Picayunne where Haslett says that the current playbook is going to be trimmed down, not that they\'ll have a new one...

http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf...61470.xml?nola

[Edited on 18/2/2005 by Tobias-Reiper]

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

There\'s no real mystery as to why this promotion is a problem.

The QB position has experienced no real improvement under Shepperd\'s watch. AB still has problems with his fundamentals. (stepping into his throws, getting the ball out quickly on plays designed for the a 3 step drop and throw).
He reduced his fumbles and increased his picks. He actually regressed this year. I know it\'s not all on coaching, but I think AB has gotten somewhat of a pass from this staff and I wanted to see someone come in and try to get more out of him, that\'s all.

Listen to Tom Brady talk and then listen to AB. Brady won\'t accept the \"great\" tag while Brooks offers it up for himself. I think he needs some tough coaching and a reality check to push himself and I don\'t see this move as heading in that direction.

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

I thought the original comment was about reducing the complexity of the signals. It always took 15 to 20 seconds getting the play in.
I don\'t think they\'re dumming down the playbook, I think they\'re revising the excessive language.
If you can say the same thing in 3 words, why use 6?

And would it matter? It seemed like our opponents owned the complicated version of our playbook anyway.

This ain\'t Sheppards 1st rodeo fella\'s.

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

Enough children! NO personal attacks!!!

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

The amazing thing about all the terminology addressed in the Haz article is this:
What evidence have we seen that this is an overly complex offense?
The run plays are very plain, with no traps or pulling guards ala Denver/Green Bay. There is a handoff to both sides and a pitch to both sides kinda like Tecmo Bowl.
The passing game consists of 7-15 yard slants/curls, a few dump offs to the RB, the WR screen, and your basic crossing pattern.

The size of the playbook further prooves my point about McCarthy. How could an offense as predictable and erratic as ours require a volume of encyclopedic size? I just didn\'t see that many looks from this offense. The fact that there was this bloated terminology behind an offense that I could predict at every turn is just amazing.

Maybe Mike thought it legitimized his \"young offensive genius\" by having a super complex framework. I would love to know how our playbook compared to the Colts\' playbook in size and scope.
Good coaches adapt to the strengths of their personnel.
Look at what Pitt did this year. They had a rookie QB so they simplified the offense. Power running game with some possession throws and a few deep balls to keep them honest. I\'m not saying their skills are the same as ours...they\'re not. But they gameplanned based on the players they had on the field.

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

... the wording on the TP article makes it sound as if they are going to primarily run the ball, but that\'s the same song we\'ve heard in the past...

..it says they are cutting the terminology too, but terminology alone is not going to cut a playbook in half...

.. but the \"downer\" is this lil\' snipplet:
... guess only time would tell whether this is a good or a bad thing...

... but again, my main beef with all of these is there is no real change, no new perspective, no new blood in this whole thing..

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

Or Norm Chow

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

I can give you two reasons why I don\'t like the move.

1) For a while now Mike Sheppard has been the Saints QB coach. His only job was to make Saints QBs into successful players at their position. Bouman is not good. Brooks, despite boatloads of talent, hasn\'t progressed as I would have expected, and he remains one of the most inconsistent QBs in the league. Not exactly the kind of performance you want to see of a guy who just got a whole lot more responsibility.

2) This is typical of the Haslett-era Saints. Don\'t go out and find the right guy, plug a hole with some other (cheaper and less qualified) candidate.

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

Let\'s address Bouman first. How many games have you seen Bouman play? ZERO!! You sure are quick to write a guy off.

Brooks has progressed every year he\'s been in the league. You want to blame Sheppard for Brooks\' fumbles in 2003? That doesn\'t make much sense to me. And if Brooks is so stupid, maybe Sheppard has done a magical job.


Sounds more like a grudge against Haslett than anything else. Sheppard has coached the 3rd and 13th ranked offenses in the NFL. And did it with very little talent. You sure are quick to write a guy off.

[Edited on 19/2/2005 by GumboBC]

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

WOW! Really? And just imagine - he was so sought after as an OC that he ended up as the Saints QB coach. You se Monte Kiffin leaving Tampa to come coach the Saints LBs any time soon?

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

WhoDat --

I know ya like arguing with me, but come on...

Why are you writing Sheppard off so quickly?

What is it about Sheppard that you don\'t like? Besides being chosen by Jim Haslett?

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

I am not saying that it is impossible for Sheppard to succeed. Nor am I saying that it is unlikely. I am saying that, IMO, he is less likely to succeed. I\'ve given you my reasons. He was not a spectacular position coach for us. Further, the team\'s history seems relevant to me. Maybe it doesn\'t to you. Maybe that\'s why every year you can completely forget about the last one, two, three, four... seasons and expect 12-4, I don\'t know. I mean, c\'mon - if the Saints sign another backup LB that you\'ve never heard of (a la Ruff) this offseason and Haslett comes out and talks about how he thinks this guy can solve the Saints problem at LB - you won\'t be skeptical? IMO, and this has nothing to do with you Billy, but if a person isn\'t skeptical of that, I think they\'re either wishfully optimistic, ignorant of the situation, or stupid. That\'s just my opinion. But in life in general, when a person or organization does the same thing over and over without different results, if you\'re not skeptical of their \"next big thing\" then you\'re a sucker.

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

WhoDat --

I\'m not convinced our offense is going to be any better than this past year. In fact, it might be worse.

But, I really can\'t say one way or the other on Sheppard. And I don\'t see how anyone else can either.

What Haslett has done in the past has no bearing on Sheppard\'s skills as an offensive coordinator.

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

I don\'t know that I agree that Haslett\'s history as a coach and in hiring coaches is totally irrelevant in trying to predict how a coach Haslett hired might perform. Would you trust Venturi if he said another guy was a good coach? I wouldn\'t. Know why? I don\'t think Venturi has the first clue as to what it means to be a good coach.


Sheppard might eventually work out, yes. But my point remains the same as it was when the Saints announced that McCarthy was leaving. Even if the defense jumps 10 spots (which is a huge jump in the NFL), they will still finish 22nd in the league. I think that the offense will suffer through growing pains as the scheme changes - that\'s normal IMO. So if they are slightly worse, that makes them what? 18th? 20th?

A 22nd ranked defense and an 18th ranked offense isn\'t a recipe for success in the NFL.

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

WhoDat --

As it stands right now, I don\'t see us making the playoffs. But, it really has nothing to do with coaching. Not on the offense anyway. If we don\'t get some offensive linemen that can block, coaching isn\'t going to help too much.

But, if we get some offensive linemen, I think Sheppard has a real shot of getting this high-powered offense on track. I don\'t think finishing in the top 5 is unrealistic. IF the offensive line is fixed.

The defense is another story. I think it\'s about middle of the pack in terms of talent. I like the direction the scheme is headed.

A lot is going to depend on free-agency and the draft.

In any case ... I remain cautiously optimistic...

Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?
 

playoff?! playoffs?! if the saints hold true to tradition, they won\'t sign anyone that will significantly enable us in any way whatsoever, draft \"the best available player\" (which, will probably some position we are ok at) and then keep us all in suspense about the upcoming season, keep our hopes up for the majority of the season only to be sorrily disappoint (again)