Dwelling on the past?
 

As a Saints' fan I've been disappointed more years than I care to remember. I started watching the Saints in the early 70's, so we can go way back and talk about it all if you want to.

But, I prefer not to dwell on the past as it really has no bearing on the future.

Really, all I'm interested in is the 2005 season. Not 2004 or 2003 or any of the previous years.

It seems to me that some Saints' fans love to dwell on the past more than they should. It seems to me that they are some of the more bitter fans I've ever encountered. Even Boston Redsox fans never bashed their team the way some Saints' fans have.

What's my point?

Well, I'm going to use WhoDat as an example.

WhoDat has said this team has had enough talent to go to the playoffs the past few years. Now, I'm not putting words in his mouth and I'm not disagreeing with him either.

But then WhoDat knocks this team every offseason and says they haven't added enough talent to compete. And he basically tries to convince everyone to expect more of the same.

If WhoDat thinks this team has enough talent to go to the playoff every year, that must mean Haslett and co. have assembled more talent than most teams in the NFL?! Playoff teams are the cream of the crop in the NFL.

Now, I can tell you right now WhoDat will counter this by saying that "coaching" is the problem and not talent.

But facts are facts!!

And the facts are ... WhoDat says this team is severly lacking in talent. Then he says this team has enough talent to be an elite team. And playoff teams are elite teams.

For the record ... I think if you add all the talent up on this team that it equals about a .500 team. Just look at the talent of defense the past few years and it's not hard to see the lack of talent when compared to the rest of the NFL.

And if you think our offense should have carried us to the promised land, then I don't really see that either. We've got Joe Horn, Deuce McAllister, and Aaron Brooks and not much after that on offense.

Still, it's not like we're that far away from being a playoff team.

The secondary is much improved when compared to previous years. Deuce is back healthy. The offensive line should be better.

But, we still need LB. Look, I could go on and on. But, if someone's sole purpose on this board is to dwell on the negatives and point to the past and try to convince folks that we are going to suck, then why follow the Saints and spend so much time on a Saints' message board?

Dwelling on the past?
 

Wow. I wonder what your purpose is with this thread Billy. Hopefully, another Mod will lock this before it gets ugly. I\'ll try to keep it civil and simply expose you for what you are.

Yes, this team has had enough talent to go to the playoffs for the last five years. For the last four, they\'ve needed to upgrade at a few key positions. Everyone on the board knows what they are b/c 3 of the following 4 have been needs every single season: LB, DT, CB, S.

Hey Billy, what were our major needs coming into this offseason?
1. LB
2. OT
3. DT
4. S

How about last year?
1. LB
2. CB
3. DT

Year before?
1. LB
2. DT
3. CB
4. S

Starting to see a trend? I\'m quite sure that you\'re not. You haven\'t seen it in 4 years, despite many people explaining it you in language a four year old could understand.

There are two issues. The first is addressing the right position. The second is getting the right player. You want to point to signings like the Orlando Ruff signing (I\'ll go get a quote if you want), and say that they did address positions of need. But they have never ADEQUATELY addressed them. Orlando Ruff and Levar Fisher or whatever the guy\'s name is aren\'t exactly solving the problem.

I never said that - but I did say that they have the most talent in the NFC. I think most people on this board and certainly in the media agree with that. I know you think that only Haslett and Brooks are worth keeping, but...

The main problem here is simple Billy. You FORGET the past every offseason. You totally discount any problem that the Saints have ever had and talk yourself into a tizzy and usually come out predicting 10-6 or better. In the last 4 years, I\'ve predicted 8-8, 8-8 or 9-7, 9-7, and 10-6. I\'ve never been more than 2 games from their ACTUAL record.

You\'re predicted 12-4, 10-6 or 11-5, and last year you didn\'t even make a prediction b/c you\'d been destroyed the previous two years.



The title of this thread is a thin veil to cover your true intent. This thread is about nothing but attacking my credibility. I would deal with it, but that would just give you more ammunition. I hope another Mod will. But before they do, I\'ll show the other new guys a little something...



Generally guys, you see a LOT of these types of posts from Billy about me every offseason. Here\'s what you see after the season:

Dwelling on the past?
 

Dwelling on the past?
 

A few other GREAT predictions - this is why he doesn\'t make predictions anymore he only attacks other\'s...


:o


And you\'re in here talking about me flip flopping???


That\'s right folks, Billy predicted a TOP 10 DEFENSE


Sorry Billy, I misquoted you. I said you predicted 12-4. Actually, it was 13-3.

Dwelling on the past?
 

i think being a playoff team is by no means \"cream of the crop\". 37.5% of the teams go to the playoffs. that is why it is such an indictment to not even make that grade for 4 years.

i think this team has been criticized and identified not by just fans but widely from national media as being perhaps the most underachieving team in the league. as for pure talent, i do think they have had enough to have been in the playoffs at least. after you get there, that is another story that establishes a team\'s legacy at a higher level. during the past season the arizona game was a solid \"should have won\" game. at least one or maybe both the atlanta and minny losses were \"shouldas\". that is 10 or 11 wins and playoffs. not losing games that should be won are more vital to continued success than pulling off the big upsets imo. that is what this team has done these past few years- some high flying big wins along with collapses like the 2002 end losses to minny and league dregs carolina and cincy to not take that next step.

i started a thread looking at the vikings overhaul this offseason. whether it works or not it is to be seen. what i liked though is that after a similar history as the saints the past 5 years (strong offense, porous defense, one playoff appearance during tice\'s 4yr reign) they decided not to be satidfied with the same formula that has yielded similar results year after year. defense does win championships. so? let\'s get defense then. let\'s get rid of an obnoxious prima donna even if he is one of the best ever at his position. if we do not go anywhere again let\'s not do it over the same way we have the past 4 years. i will count the saints offseason successful if they get the dat n 2nd trade done. if it is the same group of LBs less hodge depending on another rookie i cannot do that. i would however have been more excited to see the defense overhauled ala the vikings. not necessarily the biggest names or highest costing players but make decisive impacting changes to the very last ranked defense inthe league. the who\'s and how\'s of that are and endless speculation that many have pondered here.

i am hopeful. i am a saints fan so you better have hope. many years that is all there is. i just know what i see on the field and what an administration is by there actions. these players can and should be achieving more. loomis is no finks.

ps/ calling dat out like that is bullsh!t. quit arguing for the sake of arguing and purposefully trying to attract attention through such immature pot stirring.

[Edited on 19/3/2005 by LKelley67]

Dwelling on the past?
 

WhoDat --


I used you as an example, athough I could have used one of many guys on this board.

But, I used you because of you inconsisent views.

It seems to me that you \"double-dip\" when it comes to the talent vs. coaching issue.

Example:

So, we really didn\'t need to add anyone this offseason and we will have enough talent to make the playoffs?!

That\'s where you lose me, WhoDat. I\'m really not trying to diminish your \"credibility\", I\'m just trying to understand your position.

In other threads you consistently say that this team is \"severly\" lacking in talent.

Here\'s some areas you say we need other players:

1. Quarterback.
2. Both offensive tackles.
3. Tightend.
4. MLB.
5. SLB.
6. WLB.
7. DT
8. CB
9. FS

What gives? Why don\'t you consistently state that Haslett and company have done a fine job of assembling playoff talent and that coaching is the problem.

Instead, you seem to be all over the place. Haslett can\'t develop talent. Haslett can\'t spot talent. Then you turn right around and say:

And don\'t be telling me nothing about trying to diminish your \"credibility.\" Unless you\'d like me to go dig up somethings that you\'ve started about me.?

Dwelling on the past?
 

.. for a guy whose posts have stats plastered all over 9 out of 10 times...
:rollinglaugh:

Dwelling on the past?
 

Thin ice, boys, very thin ice! Play nice. :)

Dwelling on the past?
 

Against my better judgment, I\'ll play this game and assume that you actually are being straight here and really just don\'t understand my opinion.

I don\'t recall ever saying that the Saints uniformly lacked talent. I have said that there are \"severe\" (your word) gaps in the talent pool AT KEY POSITIONS. Linebacker is one of those, and has been for a long time. Wouldn\'t you agree?

As for, how I can say that this team has the ability to make the playoffs and simultaneously need to upgrade - I don\'t see how that\'s a problem. If your goal is to make the playoffs, that\'s fine. I want to see the Saints win it all.

What does that mean? Let me explain clearly.

- The Saints have the talent to make the playoffs. Coaching, maturity, and leadership have kept them from it.

- The Saints need to upgrade at KEY positions to become an upper tier Super Bowl contender.

- For all of the talent this Front Office has accumulated, it seems to have squandered incredible opportunity the last few years by ignoring the KEY positions like LB and DT, or by making incorrect choices...

I don\'t think it\'s all that hard a concept. Seattle made the playoffs, right? Does that mean that they don\'t need to improve? Does that mean that they have all the talent that they need at every position? I think the clear answer is no. Just b/c the Saints have the talent to make the playoffs doesn\'t mean that they don\'t have needs and areas in which they can improve. Would you disagree?

Dwelling on the past?
 

Ok. First of all, Billy is more of a optimist. Nothing wrong with that. His love for the game and the Saints brings him into every offseason as another season that \"might be the year.\" He dives into stats and sometimes his loyalty to players and coaches drives him to believe that this year might be different. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with that. I\'ve been a member of this site for a close to 2 years now. I never started posting things on the forums until recently. Personally I have enjoyed reading some postive feedback from different fans on the sight. Billy always has hope. Nothing wrong with that.

Whodat is more of a realist. He looks into the stats but most of his post are more of a realistic look at the team. Whodat has hope but dosen\'t let it get in the way of his approach to the team or the coaches. It may seem Whodat is more of a negetive person when it comes to the Saints, but he looks at the team needs. Whodat evaluates players, not just by stats, but by worth. Whether or not he likes the player, the loyalty to the player rarely out weighs the need for change. There is nothing wrong with that, either.

Both of you guys make dang good points. Billy keeps the hope, Whodat keeps it real.

Two different fans with two different views.

I will say when you guys get p**sed at each other, it gets pretty da*m funny.

I just wanted to add some rather obvious insight to the thread.

Dwelling on the past?
 

Good point Kelly.

Dwelling on the past?
 

I tend to sometimes dwell in the past so I\'ll take this post as partly directed towards me.

A lot of Saints fans tend to dwell on the past and are eternally pessimistic. The truth of the matter is that we love the Saints as much as anything in the world. We can\'t just turn a blind eye to the past and say \"we\'ll get \'em next year\". That is exactly what the F.O. wants us to do. Continually accept mediocrity and blindly shell out our hard earned money for a substandard product. We \"past dwellers\" refuse to eat the crap that the F.O. tries to feed us, instead we say \"Show us something different than what you showed us in the past\". Quite frankly, the organization hasn\'t given much reason for the Saints faithful to look toward the future.

I think that we \"past dwellers\" will look towards the future when it is obvious that the Saints will commit to excellence, and don\'t just say it in ad campaigns.

We \"past dwellers\" are probably too demanding though, right???

Dwelling on the past?
 

Why? To keep dude\'s like you in check, for starters. Saying that people are going around trying to convince others that the Saints will suck is kinda stretching it, don\'t you think?
Maybe warning people not to get sucked into that same ol\' offseason hype that happens every year after a disappointing one would be a more appropriate assessment of some of us \"dwellers.\" The Saints have to prove it on the playing field. That is the only way that most of us \"dwellers\" will be able to stop, not when someone else says, \"OK, it\'s time to forget the last 38 years and home in on next year!\" Why not just shorten it and say, \"Wait \'til next year!!\"



[/quote:cb8a219f5c]

Dwelling on the past?
 

[/quote:7475bcc5ea]

Bitter much?

Dwelling on the past?
 

No, not any more this year than any other. Realistic perhaps might be a better choice of words. How about you, are you bitter that everyone doesn\'t just fall in line and say, \"Hell yeah, man, this is the year!!\"

Dwelling on the past?
 

Or, we could just concentrate on this off-season and the upcoming year?

But, we can also concentrate on the past 38 years. Makes sense to me ... :casstet:

Dwelling on the past?
 

Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. :read:

Dwelling on the past?
 

I\'ve long thought that you worked for the Saints PR Dept.


Billy: Can we just focus on the 2005 season?
WhoDat: Sure, what are the problems with the team?
Billy: LB is a big one.
WhoDat: Why?
Billy: They sucked last year.
WhoDat: But we\'re only looking forward.
Billy: You\'re right!
WhoDat: So what are the problems?
Billy: I dunno. I\'d have to guess. But one thing is sure - none of that old stuff matters! The Saints don\'t officially have any problems right now!
WhoDat: uh-huh.
Billy: They\'re going to be 13-3!!
WhoDat: Doubt it.
Billy: You\'re the most pessimistic person ever.


[Edited on 21/3/2005 by WhoDat]

Dwelling on the past?
 

WhoDat --

There\'s nothing wrong with looking at the past and using it to judge what the future might hold.

But, some of you, just beat it in the ground.

It\'s like when someone posts something about the present, some of you guys have to bring up the same old stuff before getting to the topic at hand.

Dwelling on the past?
 

I think that historical arguments have their place. For example, looking at a guys stats can help you make a very rough prediction about his stats in the coming year. However, that alone will lead to disaster - you need to know a bunch of other facts, like who he\'ll be playing with this year, is he on the same team, any offseason injuries, how old is he... and so on.

Here is a concept that did some work back when I was a broker. We used to look at what was called the 5 year rolling average. This means, you track a stock only over its last five years\' performance, not its lifetime. Sure 5 years is arbitrary, but the idea is this - the entire history of a thing is not likely to be explanatory (i.e. something that happend 20 years ago is going to have very little impact - and, actually, probably no impact - on what is going on now). But I digress. The point: history is something that we can learn from, and sometimes (in the short run) it can help us make good predictions about the future (which will allow us to make adjustments and so on); however, the entire history of a thing is usually irrelevant to the important causal (predictive) story.

It is my view, that without certain facts being the case (things like relevant similarities), historical facts are of only marginal to decent value.

I\'m with Who on this: certain historical facts are pertinent to excellent analysis.
AND
I\'m with Billy on this: some people take the history thing way over-board. The fact that this team has a LONG history of not winning is totally uninteresting to anything. The fact that its recent history is to be .500, now THAT is interesting.

PS - I didn\'t read through all your stuff here guys, sorry. It was just too much. So, if this is off track, just let me know.

Dwelling on the past?
 

Good summary, JKool.

But, it seems to me that some guys could just cut and paste this on every thread:

Then once we get past that we could actually talk about the topic at hand.

;)

Dwelling on the past?
 

Right.

Here is the second thing that people need to think about then: if you describe the data sufficiently generally, you can demonstrate almost whatever you like. Saying \"we haven\'t done x in 5 years\" can be made true by merely filling in the right x. The standard rule for avoiding this is to be sure that x is the kind of thing that could be causally responsible for some thing you\'d like to show. Thus, \"not filling needs\" is the kind of thing that is causally responsible for not winning, but it masks the details, which may be illuminating. And, \"we cannot win because we never have\" is NOT the sort of thing that is causally responsible for our not winning.

;)

Dwelling on the past?
 

J brings up a good point. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns (flash back to finance class!!!). This is true, and suggesting that simply b/c a player or team performed a certain way last year means he will in the coming year is a recipe for disaster.

Of course, the flip side is that if you want to make a prediction as to what a person might expect in the next season, I don\'t know how you could do that without considering previous performances. Bottom line is that what a player or team has done in the past is the best indicator of future performance that we have. It\'s not perfect, but if you look at the numbers thoroughly and consider all the factors, you can do a pretty decent job.

For example, two years ago I predicted that the Panthers would be much improved. I said I thought that they were a scary team that might even be able to win the division. I didn\'t come close to envisioning them in the Super Bowl, however at a time when most other people on this board were pointing to the Bucs and Falcons, I was probably most scared of the Panthers. Last year I said that the Falcons would be much improved and a contender just by getting Vick back. Again, I didn\'t predict them being as good as they ended up being, but...

The point is, you can do two things. Try and find out everything you can about past performances and try to figure out why they happened. Then apply current events to try and make an educated guess. OR, you can ignore the past and blindly predict 13-3 every year. I choose the former.