Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

Just some food for thought.

For a while now, I've been preaching change for the Saints. I have said, and still believe that change is needed for this team to take the next step. To truly contend, I think this team needs changes at a few key spots - GM, HC, DC... even QB. :) Some have argued that change could make things worse. Certainly, it could. That is, assuming that you believe that there is something worse than 4 years of mediocrity. In any case, THIS IS NOT A SHOT AT ANYONE, I just thought it was interesting.

A quote from a man who knew a thing or two about change and challenge.


"The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
-Winston Churchill

So I guess that makes me an optimist after all. I believe that things can get better, and I'm willing to take a risk and deal with hardship to achieve them. Are you? :)

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

Problem is that we have seen a lot of change in recent years -- not from the top levels but certainly from a player perspective. We finally have the same nucleus of players to start with so I would rather wait one more year before mass changes -- but by middle next year if things are same ol same ol I\'d say dump Haz middle of next year ===

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

Ahh, Churchill, one of my favorite characters.
He also said that if you\'re not a liberal at 18, you have no heart, if you\'re still a liberal when you\'re 30, you have no brain.
But I digress.
Here\'s my optimistic take on 2005.
1. The \"assistants\" we brought in will actually replace Venturi as DC, even if it doesn\'t appear so on paper.
2. Sheppard will be infinitley less predictable than McCarthy was. I don\'t think the problem was the playbook, it was the execution and playcalling.
3. Deuce will show up at a fit 225 and be the explosive top 3 back he\'s capable of.
4. This new O-line coach, with the addition of a viable replacement for Riley will improve this underachieving O-line and bring the running game back to the dominating force it should be.
5. Pease\'s psychotic dedication to converting that lazy P.O.S. Sullivan into a quality D-lineman will pay huge dividends to the interior versus the run.
6. Extremely young and promising players like Stallworth, Allen, Bockwoldt, Watson, Henderson, Smith, Holland, Karney, Gardner, Mitchell, Grant, Boo, and even Deuce will all improve instead of regress.

Talent wise, there is a lot to be optimistic about with this team. Unfortunately the history of unrealized potential dampens the enthusiam. Especialy since the main culprits of the unrealized potential are still calling the shots in 2005.

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

Not to beat a dead horse..

But..I am still focused on L.A....IF we can get a deal done....I will be renewed with hope...but as of right now...I\'m feeling like Maurice Clarett on the 1st day of the draft...kinda hopeless...

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

I agree 100% with Whodat on this one and it is the source of my frustration. There are some people that seem content to just let a mediocre situation ride rather than take the risk of something new. For my part, I can pretty much predict how certain players will play this year because I\'ve watched them for the last five years. I don\'t want that any more. I am ready to take a chance on almost anyone else in the hope it will be better, rather than keep the same old losers around and hover in average-ville.

By the same token, I love Danno\'s \"blinding\" optimism. I sure hope he\'s right. Man, would I love to finally see the Saints play ball up to my dream-level of expectation.

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

I was all for Danno\'s blinding optimism until I read that he believes Sully the slacker is going to be turned into a defensive force.

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

Saints fans are the most loyal, diehard, stubborn and passionate fans in the NFL. For years we have been *****ing and moaning about the same things, but we always comeback for more. Like Frazier and Ali, Joe got the crap beat out of him three times but he never stopped, he always kept coming and he won, if only once, he won.

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

Actually Joe won all 3 fights wih Ali

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

Never said I believed that, only that its one of the things that may happen
I listed 6 items. Of those 3 may actually happen. But if more than 3 happen we\'ll make major strides.
While this team hasn\'t made the two moves I wanted (Haz and Venturi), it has surrounded Haz with assistants with experience and success. That may help, it may not.
There have been many a coach stand on the shouder\'s of giants. I\'m cautiously optimistic but silently skeptical.

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

4saints, please before posting a reply to any of my comments or others, CHECK YOUR FACTS FIRST!!!!!!!!!! I will bet you one zillion dollars Austin that Joe did not win all three fights, in fact it was only ONE.

:iamwst:

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

Nope, he won the first, lost the second and the third. To this day he genuinely hates Ali.

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

I know that -- \'in Jan 1974 Ali killed him -- the fight was almost stopped in the 2nd (maybe 3rd) round by the ref.

The last fight Joe\'s trainer did not let him enter the ring for the 15th round

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

For TWO years I\'ve told WhoDat this team had the talent to go to the playoffs. For TWO years WhoDat has told me that that the \"coaching\" wasn\'t going to allow that to happen.

Well, I still think we had the talent to go to the playoffs. But, WhoDat (I hate to say this) was right!!

Haslett and co. have done a lot to keep this team out of the playoffs. Most of which I think has to do with his insistance on keeping Venturi at D-coordinator. And his faillure to address weaknesses in free-agency.

So, making changes might have gotten us further than what we have made it.

But, that does not mean Haslett can\'t or won\'t get the job done.

I\'ve preached for TWO years that coaching only plays a limited role in a teams success.

Good coaching does NOT = good teams.

How\'s Jon Gruden, Bill Parcells, Mike Holmgren, or Mike Shanahan doing? Most of those coaches are probably on the verge on getting fired if they don\'t get over the hump soon!!

Haslett has taken longer than I would have liked. That still does NOT mean it\'s been all his fault. And it doesn\'t mean he\'s above taking much of the blame, either.

I truly believe Haslett is a good coach that has made some mistakes.

I don\'t have a crystal ball and I have no idea how the 2005 season is gonna go. I will not be pessimistic just because of what\'s happend in the past.

I will look at things objectively and if I think we\'re gonna suck, then that\'s what I\'ll say.

As of right NOW, It\'s wait and see baby!!

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

Coaching only provides a limited influence?

I\'m sorry..but I disagree..

If I were to coach the Pats..you would see a much digressed version of the dynasty you see now...

Like a General on the Field..A Coach ultimatley decides..winning or losing..preperation is the key...and the H...haha

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

Yeah, I suppose Belichick don\'t have any talent up there in New England.

You\'re telling me the samething folks told me about Holmgren, Shanahan, and Gruden. Not to mention Parcells.

The simple FACT is that when the talent get\'s gone, the coach ain\'t far behind.

[Edited on 25/2/2005 by GumboBC]

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

Yea, you lend a brother who\'s down on his luck some much needed support and a boatload of cash to bail him out of his own mess, and he turns around and ridicules you to the press, you tend to hold a grudge.
What did Ali call him? An ignorant gorilla or something as insulting as that?
Muhammed Ali could be the most over-rated sports hero to ever walk this planet.

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

Yeah, I suppose Belichick don\'t have any talent up there in New England.



[Edited on 25/2/2005 by GumboBC] [/quote:b3f0d10272]



Yes..he has a very talented team..and they didn\'t just fall from the sky..he hand picked this team..and he got the guys he wanted..and showed them how to do the things he wants them to do...and his system works...he gets the guys he needs..and makes it happen...

Coachng is key to success...not only HC..but all the Assistants..and trainers...If you surround yourself with winners..you win...that was Bill\'s job..and he did very well...

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

While coaching is very important, I don\'t think it is the \"key\".

The \"key\" is for a good coach to get good players to coach. But, that isn\'t exactly \"coaching\" is it?

Coaching ain\'t gonna get you but so far if you don\'t have the right players. As Bill Parcells, Jon Gruden, Mike Shanahan, and Mike Holmgren would probably tell you.

And \"coaches\" have a hard time trying to get those good players. As Bill Parcells, Jon Gruden, Mike Shanahan, and Mike Holmgren would probably tell you.

What\'s Holmgren without Favre, Reggie White, and co?

What\'s Shanahan without John Elway and Terrell Davis?

What was Jimmy Johnson without Troy Aikman, Emmit Smith, and Michael Irvin.

IF a coach can get the right talent, then his coaching talents will have a chance to succeed. If not, they ain\'t so hot.

GMs play an instrumental part in building football teams. And it\'s the coach who gets most of the glory.

I\'m not saying coaching isn\'t very important. Cause it is. But it takes much more than a good coach to get it done.

Change: One OPTIMISTS argument.
 

I can, for the most part, agree with that...