Saint_LB

No, you are not reading it correctly. Benson refuses to operate a business without maximum profit. And by payout if you are referring to gate, that\'s probably true...but a lot more of a team\'s money comes from other sources besides gate.

saintswhodi

As much as this was hashed out, it\'s hard to believe anyone still uses this argument to show the team SPENDS money. This payroll figure has little to do with SPENDING money. It has to do with PAYING salary. The obvious example is Joe Horn\'s salary. Last year he made $600,000. This year he is scheduled to make $4.7 mil. Think that will affect the payroll numbers we show? I wonder how many more contracts the Saints have like that? We sure as hell aren\'t SPENDING money to bring in big name guys(except this year). We are PAYING existing contracts and that\'s the anamoly that was that year.

[Edited on 9/3/2005 by saintswhodi]

saintz08

By all means , please do elaborate ......

saintz08

Think again ....

Forbes magazine estimates that the Redskins, which Snyder bought for $800
million,
are worth more than $1 billion now, thanks largely to Snyder\'s marketing
savvy and squeeze-in-every-seat approach at FedEx Field. Snyder has added
around 12,000 seats, boosting the stadium\'s capacity to 91,665, the
biggest
in the NFL.

Of course, none of that has helped the Redskins on the field. They have
only one winning season since 1999. Indeed, eight of this year\'s 12
playoff
teams were in the bottom half of league revenues in 2003, based on the
Forbes study. The bottom-half teams include the Steelers, who have a 15-1
record and are favored by many to win the Super Bowl.

It bolsters the argument by some that NFL success has more to do with
management than money.

\"There is no correlation between high-revenue teams and winning
percentage,\" McNair said. \" [b:fc5bcb6c9d] And no correlation between salaries paid and
winning percentage.[/b:fc5bcb6c9d] We have a good balance in the NFL and the number of
teams in the highest payroll quartile are located in the lowest quartile
of
revenue teams.\"

http://www.talkaboutprofootball.com/...ges/71390.html






[Edited on 9/3/2005 by saintz08]

\"Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn\'t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed.\" - George S. Patton
On another note, I\'ll take a bite of that crow 08. - Saintfan
Brooks is a moron!! - Halo

Saint_LB

Boy, I am thoroughly convinced now!! Yep, we sure are set with our superstar QB, a coach that teams are standing in line for, and an all-pro studded line-up. What\'s the matter with me...anybody can see that the money is flowing freelly in the crescent city.

CanLoomis

I am new to the board and am not familar with the history of the \"vandettas\" , but I was under the impression people can have their own opinions and voice them openly and freely.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the early portion of this debate about Detillier seemed to annoy some people. Why? I am not sure, nor do I care. Billy voiced his opinion, a VERY ACCURATE one by the way, and it seemed to bother one of the other board members. If Billy sees Detillier as a fraud, than let him. I see him as a fraud and so does the majority of personnel men in the NFL. Just because you hear his name/voice, and see his books doesn\'t mean he is a reliable source of information.

I like to be able to speak freely and was under the impression that this board would welcome that. This thread is a little dissapointing to know that may not be the case. We\'re all here for a common goal or reason. To talk Saints football and voice opinions, ideas, news, etc. I thought that is what this is for. I hope I am right.

JOESAM2002

CanLoomis,please feel free to speak your mind. There\'s more to the situation with Gumbo than you know. I try to be fair to all members. I\'m just not to fond of being slapped in the face.

BlackandBlue

You are, by all rights, welcome to have and voice your opinion, openly and freely. But others have an equal right to have and voice their opinions about your opinions as well.
Because one shares your opinion on a particular subject, does not always mean their motives are the same as your own.

RDOX

Sadly, the Saints situation remains mediocre; no matter how much we want them to win. These threads are all full of ideas that the average fan wants to see in order to get a winner. I personally, just want to see a 9-7 season this year to get out of the 8-8 rut that we\'ve been in for the last 3 years.

One of the problems with Mike D. is that he is negative, but so was Buddy D., Peter Finney, Brian Allee Walsh, Sheldon Mickles, Kevin Foote, Kenny Wilkerson, and Nick Deriso.
Seems to me that these guys are around the Saints in a lot more personal and close manner than we are. Therefore, their take on the Saints may be closer to the mark than we want to admit.

Let me go on record as saying that I want the Saints to win. I am old enough and have enough experience to look at the situation realistically, and from where I sit, and reading what I read, the Saints have a long way to go. Is that negative? I tend to agree with Xan and Whodi in their assessments of the team. I love to read JKool\'s posts. He is upbeat, and optimistic about the situation, but tends to be realistic and will LISTEN to an argument logically put. Danno is fantastic with his observations as is LaidBack and many, many others.

The bottom line is that we all are frustrated with what the Saints organization is doing or rather not doing. This frustration comes from the fact that the guy on the street has better vision about what the Saints should do than does the front office. That said, to blindly say that the Saints are winners and that they are going to the Superbowl is simply fantasy. There are a ton of things that are not right in the Saints Front Office, Coaching Staff, and Player Personnel. Since the owner has not addressed these problems, we will remain an 8-8 team. It doesn\'t deal with money, market, or name players. It deals with a knowledge of football, a solid plan to get to the goal, and a willingness to REALISTICALLY appraise the talent that the team possesses and what needs are to be met.

I\'m sure that this response will be viewed as highly negative in some quarters. What I see Mike D saying resonates with a high degree of credibility, negative or not, because the team, so far has not produced what they say they can produce. If I were a reporter that would be my theme, seems that it\'s Mike D\'s theme too. :exclam:

WhoDat

This goes back to a very simple argument that has raged on this board for years. I\'m still confused as to why it is difficult to understand. My thoughts are:

A) Whether or not Mike D is the most connected \"scout\" in the NFL or the least seems mostly irrelevant to me in this case. The comments used to \"expose\" Mike D are as much opinion as information. As to the information Mike D appears to propogate concerning Tebucky and Pierce: is there anyone here that truly believes that he just made that up? I have a hard time believing that a guy who comments on football for a living would risk being shunned and ridiculed to make up wild speculation about the Saints in March. If the guy is putting his rep. on the line, I have to believe that he has at least some credible information suggesting that what he has \"told the world\" is true.

As for Mike\'s opinion, his \"credibility\" as a connected insider seems highly irrelevant. I\'ve used Kyle Turley as an example of this time and again. Turley harshly criticized the Saints front office when he left. Many fans dismissed his comments entirely b/c they said that Turley was a \"head case.\" Maybe, but since when did being insane translate into the inability to be correct? Or another example. Presumably, the Saints professional scouts and coaches have vastly more knowledge about football than I do, right? Does that mean that I was thus wrong and they were thus right in believing that Jonathan Sullivan was a good use of two first round picks? Doesn\'t seem so to me. My point is, if you want to criticize Mike D\'s comments, show why they\'re unfounded.

B) Gator is right. His query was:

\"How often does his negativity shine true for Saints? In other words, how often is this guy way off the mark. Is he way off the mark or does this have to do with the fact he critizes the Saints harshy at times and some people don\'t agree with him. \"

I can attest to being harshly criticized for accurately commenting on the Saints. I\'ve found that, when it comes to this team, seeing the hard truth that the team is mediocre and mismanaged is hard to swallow. In 2003, I suggested that the team would finish 8-8 or 9-7, that the offense would lose a step, and the defense would improve minimally if at all. I am not exagerating when I say that members of this board called me \"the most pessimistic person [they] knew.\" I was dead on. I don\'t see how accurately predicting results can be construed as negative. If the outlook of the team is bad, and you say it\'s bad, you\'re not being negative, you\'re being realistic. As Gator said, whether you like the way Mike D delivers his opinions or not, it\'s hard to argue his points.

The Saints WERE slow out of the gates in FA. They HAVEN\'T addressed the team\'s biggest area of need (LB). The ownership HASN\'T shown commitment to winning over the last 4 or 5 years, hell, maybe even 10. If you disagree, prove it.

c) Finally, some people don\'t understand the context of all this, which I feel is relevant. If you can show me a single time where the author of this thread attempted to discredit a \"media figure\" for POSITIVE comments made about the Saints, I won\'t post on this board for a month. If you only attack a person (not his comments) when he makes comments that may be construed as negative (or in many cases, not as overtly optimistic as the poster), then how can your credibility not also be in question?

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"