Saints sign Hodge! Saints sign Hodge!!!

JKool · 03-23-2005, 10:41 AM

Two things:

(1) Danno, we agree.

(2) Why do people keep saying this: \"we didn\'t address the LB position?\" That is ambiguous; it could mean (what I think people mean and should say) that we didn\'t add an impact player at LB, or it could mean that we didn\'t even try to make an improvement. This is why people get upset about this kind of statement - we TRIED to get Peirce, we signed Fisher, we retained Hodge. We did \"address\" the position, at least in one sense. Now, I\'m not excited about what they DID ACTUALLY do, but I don\'t think it is true that they didn\'t even try. (Who, incase you thought this was directed to your post, it wasn\'t.

)

saintswhodi · 03-23-2005, 10:52 AM

I think you are right Kool in that it is the \"impact\" part of the addressing the LB situation people are most frustrated with. Re-signing our own crap isn\'t addressing the LB situation to many, myself included. If I have a crappy car, and it leaks oil, constantly adding oil will ADDRESS the problem of leaking oil, but FIXING THE LEAK would probably be more beneficial to me. SO I can say I am addressing the oil problem all I want, although I am not actually doing any good. So until we see the headline \"Saints sign impact LB\" we are not addressing the situation IMO.

WhoDat · 03-23-2005, 11:48 AM

Two things:

(1) Danno, we agree.

(2) Why do people keep saying this: \"we didn\'t address the LB position?\" That is ambiguous; it could mean (what I think people mean and should say) that we didn\'t add an impact player at LB, or it could mean that we didn\'t even try to make an improvement. This is why people get upset about this kind of statement - we TRIED to get Peirce, we signed Fisher, we retained Hodge. We did \"address\" the position, at least in one sense. Now, I\'m not excited about what they DID ACTUALLY do, but I don\'t think it is true that they didn\'t even try. (Who, incase you thought this was directed to your post, it wasn\'t. )

Not at all my friend. But I\'m going to lob a couple right back at you anyway...

1) You\'re right, technically about the language, but aren\'t we splitting hairs? The difference between not adressing the position at all and addressing it in an inadequate fashion is minimal, is it not?

2) Given the GLARING hole at LB, and considering that exactly ZERO of the FA signings at the position over the last four seasons are starters right now, is it safe to assume that this type of conduct is tantamount to ignoring the position?

JKool · 03-24-2005, 02:42 AM

Tomato, Tomato.

I guess, as usual, we\'re not that far apart on this. I think, though, that the ambiguity is more frustrating that it should be. For the sake of clarity, I\'d avoid using \"addressed.\" In the past it has lead to more arguments than it has resolved.

I agree. We need an impact linebacker. Hodge isn\'t that bad as a special teamer or back up. I\'d rather have him than Melton.

saintswhodi · 03-24-2005, 09:58 AM

I\'d rather have him than Melton.

Well, now you have both, and we still haven\'t ADDRESSED our need for a STARTING LB.

WhoDat · 03-24-2005, 12:43 PM

Let it be known that BNG Statute 26.013, entitled \"JKool love Linebackers\" shall state:

(a) Regulations
No person shall use the word \"addressed\" in connection with a negative connotation regarding the New Orleans Saints efforts at signing any linebacker on or after January 1, 2000 and until at least Haslett is fired or this section is otherwise modified at JKool\'s discretion.

(b) Exceptions:
Where a posters uses the words \"adequately addressed\" as specifically stated in this section of the code, no violation will be found when applied in with a negative connotation to the New Orleans Saints efforts at signing any linebacker in the time frame specified in part (a) of this section.

03-23-2005, 10:41 AM	#21
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Saints sign Hodge! Saints sign Hodge!!! Two things: (1) Danno, we agree. (2) Why do people keep saying this: \"we didn\'t address the LB position?\" That is ambiguous; it could mean (what I think people mean and should say) that we didn\'t add an impact player at LB, or it could mean that we didn\'t even try to make an improvement. This is why people get upset about this kind of statement - we TRIED to get Peirce, we signed Fisher, we retained Hodge. We did \"address\" the position, at least in one sense. Now, I\'m not excited about what they DID ACTUALLY do, but I don\'t think it is true that they didn\'t even try. (Who, incase you thought this was directed to your post, it wasn\'t. )
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

03-23-2005, 10:52 AM	#22
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Saints sign Hodge! Saints sign Hodge!!! I think you are right Kool in that it is the \"impact\" part of the addressing the LB situation people are most frustrated with. Re-signing our own crap isn\'t addressing the LB situation to many, myself included. If I have a crappy car, and it leaks oil, constantly adding oil will ADDRESS the problem of leaking oil, but FIXING THE LEAK would probably be more beneficial to me. SO I can say I am addressing the oil problem all I want, although I am not actually doing any good. So until we see the headline \"Saints sign impact LB\" we are not addressing the situation IMO.

03-23-2005, 11:48 AM	#23
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Saints sign Hodge! Saints sign Hodge!!! Two things: (1) Danno, we agree. (2) Why do people keep saying this: \"we didn\'t address the LB position?\" That is ambiguous; it could mean (what I think people mean and should say) that we didn\'t add an impact player at LB, or it could mean that we didn\'t even try to make an improvement. This is why people get upset about this kind of statement - we TRIED to get Peirce, we signed Fisher, we retained Hodge. We did \"address\" the position, at least in one sense. Now, I\'m not excited about what they DID ACTUALLY do, but I don\'t think it is true that they didn\'t even try. (Who, incase you thought this was directed to your post, it wasn\'t. ) Not at all my friend. But I\'m going to lob a couple right back at you anyway... 1) You\'re right, technically about the language, but aren\'t we splitting hairs? The difference between not adressing the position at all and addressing it in an inadequate fashion is minimal, is it not? 2) Given the GLARING hole at LB, and considering that exactly ZERO of the FA signings at the position over the last four seasons are starters right now, is it safe to assume that this type of conduct is tantamount to ignoring the position?
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

03-24-2005, 02:42 AM	#24
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Saints sign Hodge! Saints sign Hodge!!! Tomato, Tomato. I guess, as usual, we\'re not that far apart on this. I think, though, that the ambiguity is more frustrating that it should be. For the sake of clarity, I\'d avoid using \"addressed.\" In the past it has lead to more arguments than it has resolved. I agree. We need an impact linebacker. Hodge isn\'t that bad as a special teamer or back up. I\'d rather have him than Melton.

03-24-2005, 09:58 AM	#25
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Saints sign Hodge! Saints sign Hodge!!! I\'d rather have him than Melton. Well, now you have both, and we still haven\'t ADDRESSED our need for a STARTING LB.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

03-24-2005, 12:43 PM	#26
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Saints sign Hodge! Saints sign Hodge!!! Let it be known that BNG Statute 26.013, entitled \"JKool love Linebackers\" shall state: (a) Regulations No person shall use the word \"addressed\" in connection with a negative connotation regarding the New Orleans Saints efforts at signing any linebacker on or after January 1, 2000 and until at least Haslett is fired or this section is otherwise modified at JKool\'s discretion. (b) Exceptions: Where a posters uses the words \"adequately addressed\" as specifically stated in this section of the code, no violation will be found when applied in with a negative connotation to the New Orleans Saints efforts at signing any linebacker in the time frame specified in part (a) of this section.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ 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.\"