Jonathan Sullivan in pretty good shape. HA!

baronm · 03-24-2005, 06:27 PM

he was projected at 32 but went number 6...and behind him:
palamu, trufant, suggs, nick BARNETT>>

btw barnett went later and we could have gotten him without moving up. ..

saintswhodi · 03-24-2005, 06:29 PM

I remember WhoDat told me once recently that the way I polarized one of his arguments made me sound like Gumbo, I see exactly what he means now. You are a wise man Who.

GumboBC · 03-24-2005, 06:32 PM

Hopefully you\'ve learned something from WhoDat.

Don\'t post no BS and there won\'t be no BS.

I\'m the defender of truth. Fair and balanced.

Equal opportunity basher and defender for the New Orleans Saints.

no_cloning · 03-24-2005, 06:59 PM

I believe Sullivan has the talent to succeed in the NFL and that he could make this team quite a bit better. He\'s the type of player we need - someone who can keep the pressure off the LBs so they can make plays on run plays.
Yes, I would really like to see that!

However, his actions last season have pushed him so far down the depth chart that the ball is now clearly in his court. He has to show the coaches he wants to play. And weighing in at 337 and being (presumably) pretty much out-of-shape again isn\'t a very strong statement.

To everyone who wants to cut him right now: What\'s the upisde of such a move? You save a few million dollars and send a message. I\'m just not sure what the message is. Is it a testament to the new \"No BS\"-philosophy or just a sign of the Saints giving up early on developing players? Keep him for this year at least and hope he gets his s*** together.

Danno · 03-25-2005, 07:52 AM

Problem is, the Saints have bogged themselves down with heavy contracts for unproductive players. Former first-rounder Jonathan Sullivan has yet to pan out into much more than a buffet-line bandit.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunhera...f/11036586.htm
LMAO, are you seriously trying to pass off \"yet to pan out\" as proof of no talent?
Weak, very weak.
The truth is you are the 1st I\'ve ever heard that not only questioned that he\'s talented, but also challenge that thats what most believe and have said.

But here\'s a bone for you...
If by talent you want to tie in production, then you have a point. But I consider talent as having all the physical skills neccessary to succeed. And I\'m sure thats what most of the talent comments are based on.
But I guess you can tie in heart, desire, drive, determination, work ethic, etc into the talent equation. If you do that then yeah, maybe he isn\'t as talented as everyone thought. But I don\'t think thats what everyone means when they refer to Sullivan having talent.

WhoDat · 03-25-2005, 09:37 AM

I remember WhoDat told me once recently that the way I polarized one of his arguments made me sound like Gumbo, I see exactly what he means now. You are a wise man Who.

Thanks Whodi... I knew you\'d learn eventually.

I once said that AB wasn\'t a top 5 QB, didn\'t deserve a top 5 contract, and was generally underachieving b/c, I believe he lacks intangibles that turn great talent into great players at the QB position. That turned into me having a personal vendetta, hating the guy b/c he ran off Jake Delhomme, who I am secretly in love with if you ask certain people on this board, and now through an ingenious plot to rid the world of AB, I am posting on an internet message board to start an underground cult to turn into zombies and murder AB. ... wait a minute. He\'s right. LOL

Listen to Whodat

Listen to Whodat

saintswhodi · 03-25-2005, 10:03 AM

Hey Danno, I think you got what I was saying. Maybe he does have talent, I don\'t know. But he hasn\'t shown it to me or anyone else, so I am wondering where all the he is talented talk kept coming from. He hardly played last year and was nothing special his rookie year, so I am of the opinion someone has to show you some kind of talent for it to keep being said. I didn\'t feel us drafting him high was a judge of his talent, especially if he ends up being a bust. I also posted an ESPN link that had him going 6th in the draft for DTs at number 32 Danno not just that article bit it\'s all good. Glad you caught what I was saying, lord knows others never would have.

Who, I think your exact words to me were \"Whodi, you are a smart guy, but when you polarize like that it makes you sound stupid.\" I see EXACTLY what you mean, in spades, and I apologize bud.

GumboBC · 03-25-2005, 10:24 AM

WhoDat is very good at polarizing an arguement and then calling someone to the floor because they use his OWN logic against him.

I work with what is given to me. Stick to the facts and so will I. Try and convince me that an apple is an orange and I\'ll give you lemons.

Just like my sig. says: Now, we can split hairs all you want. You say tomato and I say \'BS\'.

4saintspirit · 03-25-2005, 10:47 AM

I think that only 20 pounds overweight is a tremendous accomplishment for him. Although I have no direct proof I am pretty sure that most defensive and offensive linemen come to training camp overweight. Lets face it --- 300+pounds is a big body -- and to support that body takes a tremendous amount of food. No way he could have stayed that slim (LOL) unless he was working out cause you know he didn\'t diet.

WhoDat · 03-25-2005, 12:44 PM

Who, I think your exact words to me were \"Whodi, you are a smart guy, but when you polarize like that it makes you sound stupid.\" I see EXACTLY what you mean, in spades, and I apologize bud.

No apology needed. Certain people just tend to do that around here. If you want to use an \"extreme example\" of something as an analogy or illustration of a point, that\'s one thing. It\'s when you start changing other people\'s words.

A good example is the Horn debate. Let\'s say that A says, \"Joe Horn isn\'t top 5 b/c he doesn\'t have top 5 talent.\"

B could say \"Talent isn\'t the only thing. If that were all you were to look at, you might have to say Brooks is better than Brady b/c he\'s more talented, or Stallworth is the best WR on the team b/c he\'s the most talented. True, it takes talent to be top 5, but that\'s not all it take. A guy with top 15 talent who over achieves can be top 5.\"

Now - B isn\'t suggesting that Brooks really is better than Brady or that Stallworth is the most talented player on the team. That\'s fine. Of course, when A comes back and says, so AB is a better QB than Brady?!?! That\'s when the problems start.

WhoDat is very good at polarizing an arguement and then calling someone to the floor because they use his OWN logic against him.

I work with what is given to me. Stick to the facts and so will I. Try and convince me that an apple is an orange and I\'ll give you lemons.

I\'m not sure you understand the term \"fact\" Billy, b/c you continue to misuse it over and over again.

For example, I might say:

\"Joe Horn is a top 5 WR. (opinion) Just look at his stats. Over the last five years his numbers rank him 5th amongst all WRs. (FACT)\"

If you come in and argue WHY that might be, you\'re not arguing the FACTS, you\'re debating how they are APPLIED. To then suggest, for example, that Joe\'s number\'s are inflated b/c there are no other good WRs on the team is not contradicting the FACT that Joe STATS (which are FACTS) place him in the top 5. You\'re suggesting that the FACTS be applied in a certain way to reach a certain conclusion.

To point to his 40 yard dash time or his size and say, \"See! He isn\'t as physically gifted as T.O. or Moss\" isn\'t contradicting the facts either. It\'s pointing to additional information and again, applying it the way you see fit.

The point is, everyone in here knows 95%+ of all the FACTS about 99.9% of the crap we debate. The difference is how we APPLY them (opinion). To continue to running around waving your hands over your head and screaming \"Look at the facts, look at the facts,\" as if you know something others don\'t is pretty naive. Your problem is that you have a very difficult time seeing past your own interpretation of the facts (opinion). And since you cannot understand how someone could look at the same situation and come to a different conclusion, you point to your set of facts that help you interpret your opinion in the way you want, and suggest that any other facts or interpretations are wrong. You\'ve got the FACTS!

Yeah, so next time we have a debate, you should consider actually using some FACTS in support of your opinion. Like when I cite statistical information and then challenge you to contradict my analysis. And then BnB cites anecdotal evidence to support that view. You should then A) cite some fact (PS - stuff in the media is generally educated opinion, not FACT), and B) interpret it, and then C) show how it contradicts my opinion.

[Edited on 25/3/2005 by WhoDat]

03-24-2005, 06:27 PM	#41
baronm 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 954	Jonathan Sullivan in pretty good shape. HA! he was projected at 32 but went number 6...and behind him: palamu, trufant, suggs, nick BARNETT>> btw barnett went later and we could have gotten him without moving up. ..
baronm 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 954

03-24-2005, 06:29 PM	#42
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Jonathan Sullivan in pretty good shape. HA! I remember WhoDat told me once recently that the way I polarized one of his arguments made me sound like Gumbo, I see exactly what he means now. You are a wise man Who.

03-24-2005, 06:32 PM	#43
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Jonathan Sullivan in pretty good shape. HA! Hopefully you\'ve learned something from WhoDat. Don\'t post no BS and there won\'t be no BS. I\'m the defender of truth. Fair and balanced. Equal opportunity basher and defender for the New Orleans Saints.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

03-24-2005, 06:59 PM	#44
no_cloning 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 249	Jonathan Sullivan in pretty good shape. HA! I believe Sullivan has the talent to succeed in the NFL and that he could make this team quite a bit better. He\'s the type of player we need - someone who can keep the pressure off the LBs so they can make plays on run plays. Yes, I would really like to see that! However, his actions last season have pushed him so far down the depth chart that the ball is now clearly in his court. He has to show the coaches he wants to play. And weighing in at 337 and being (presumably) pretty much out-of-shape again isn\'t a very strong statement. To everyone who wants to cut him right now: What\'s the upisde of such a move? You save a few million dollars and send a message. I\'m just not sure what the message is. Is it a testament to the new \"No BS\"-philosophy or just a sign of the Saints giving up early on developing players? Keep him for this year at least and hope he gets his s*** together.
no_cloning 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 249

03-25-2005, 07:52 AM	#45
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	Jonathan Sullivan in pretty good shape. HA! Problem is, the Saints have bogged themselves down with heavy contracts for unproductive players. Former first-rounder Jonathan Sullivan has yet to pan out into much more than a buffet-line bandit. http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunhera...f/11036586.htm LMAO, are you seriously trying to pass off \"yet to pan out\" as proof of no talent? Weak, very weak. The truth is you are the 1st I\'ve ever heard that not only questioned that he\'s talented, but also challenge that thats what most believe and have said. But here\'s a bone for you... If by talent you want to tie in production, then you have a point. But I consider talent as having all the physical skills neccessary to succeed. And I\'m sure thats what most of the talent comments are based on. But I guess you can tie in heart, desire, drive, determination, work ethic, etc into the talent equation. If you do that then yeah, maybe he isn\'t as talented as everyone thought. But I don\'t think thats what everyone means when they refer to Sullivan having talent.

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

03-25-2005, 09:37 AM	#46
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Jonathan Sullivan in pretty good shape. HA! I remember WhoDat told me once recently that the way I polarized one of his arguments made me sound like Gumbo, I see exactly what he means now. You are a wise man Who. Thanks Whodi... I knew you\'d learn eventually. I once said that AB wasn\'t a top 5 QB, didn\'t deserve a top 5 contract, and was generally underachieving b/c, I believe he lacks intangibles that turn great talent into great players at the QB position. That turned into me having a personal vendetta, hating the guy b/c he ran off Jake Delhomme, who I am secretly in love with if you ask certain people on this board, and now through an ingenious plot to rid the world of AB, I am posting on an internet message board to start an underground cult to turn into zombies and murder AB. ... wait a minute. He\'s right. LOL Listen to Whodat Listen to Whodat
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.\"

03-25-2005, 10:03 AM	#47
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Jonathan Sullivan in pretty good shape. HA! Hey Danno, I think you got what I was saying. Maybe he does have talent, I don\'t know. But he hasn\'t shown it to me or anyone else, so I am wondering where all the he is talented talk kept coming from. He hardly played last year and was nothing special his rookie year, so I am of the opinion someone has to show you some kind of talent for it to keep being said. I didn\'t feel us drafting him high was a judge of his talent, especially if he ends up being a bust. I also posted an ESPN link that had him going 6th in the draft for DTs at number 32 Danno not just that article bit it\'s all good. Glad you caught what I was saying, lord knows others never would have. Who, I think your exact words to me were \"Whodi, you are a smart guy, but when you polarize like that it makes you sound stupid.\" I see EXACTLY what you mean, in spades, and I apologize bud.

03-25-2005, 10:24 AM	#48
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Jonathan Sullivan in pretty good shape. HA! WhoDat is very good at polarizing an arguement and then calling someone to the floor because they use his OWN logic against him. I work with what is given to me. Stick to the facts and so will I. Try and convince me that an apple is an orange and I\'ll give you lemons. Just like my sig. says: Now, we can split hairs all you want. You say tomato and I say \'BS\'.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

03-25-2005, 10:47 AM	#49
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690	Jonathan Sullivan in pretty good shape. HA! I think that only 20 pounds overweight is a tremendous accomplishment for him. Although I have no direct proof I am pretty sure that most defensive and offensive linemen come to training camp overweight. Lets face it --- 300+pounds is a big body -- and to support that body takes a tremendous amount of food. No way he could have stayed that slim (LOL) unless he was working out cause you know he didn\'t diet.
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690

03-25-2005, 12:44 PM	#50
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Jonathan Sullivan in pretty good shape. HA! Who, I think your exact words to me were \"Whodi, you are a smart guy, but when you polarize like that it makes you sound stupid.\" I see EXACTLY what you mean, in spades, and I apologize bud. No apology needed. Certain people just tend to do that around here. If you want to use an \"extreme example\" of something as an analogy or illustration of a point, that\'s one thing. It\'s when you start changing other people\'s words. A good example is the Horn debate. Let\'s say that A says, \"Joe Horn isn\'t top 5 b/c he doesn\'t have top 5 talent.\" B could say \"Talent isn\'t the only thing. If that were all you were to look at, you might have to say Brooks is better than Brady b/c he\'s more talented, or Stallworth is the best WR on the team b/c he\'s the most talented. True, it takes talent to be top 5, but that\'s not all it take. A guy with top 15 talent who over achieves can be top 5.\" Now - B isn\'t suggesting that Brooks really is better than Brady or that Stallworth is the most talented player on the team. That\'s fine. Of course, when A comes back and says, so AB is a better QB than Brady?!?! That\'s when the problems start. WhoDat is very good at polarizing an arguement and then calling someone to the floor because they use his OWN logic against him. I work with what is given to me. Stick to the facts and so will I. Try and convince me that an apple is an orange and I\'ll give you lemons. I\'m not sure you understand the term \"fact\" Billy, b/c you continue to misuse it over and over again. For example, I might say: \"Joe Horn is a top 5 WR. (opinion) Just look at his stats. Over the last five years his numbers rank him 5th amongst all WRs. (FACT)\" If you come in and argue WHY that might be, you\'re not arguing the FACTS, you\'re debating how they are APPLIED. To then suggest, for example, that Joe\'s number\'s are inflated b/c there are no other good WRs on the team is not contradicting the FACT that Joe STATS (which are FACTS) place him in the top 5. You\'re suggesting that the FACTS be applied in a certain way to reach a certain conclusion. To point to his 40 yard dash time or his size and say, \"See! He isn\'t as physically gifted as T.O. or Moss\" isn\'t contradicting the facts either. It\'s pointing to additional information and again, applying it the way you see fit. The point is, everyone in here knows 95%+ of all the FACTS about 99.9% of the crap we debate. The difference is how we APPLY them (opinion). To continue to running around waving your hands over your head and screaming \"Look at the facts, look at the facts,\" as if you know something others don\'t is pretty naive. Your problem is that you have a very difficult time seeing past your own interpretation of the facts (opinion). And since you cannot understand how someone could look at the same situation and come to a different conclusion, you point to your set of facts that help you interpret your opinion in the way you want, and suggest that any other facts or interpretations are wrong. You\'ve got the FACTS! Yeah, so next time we have a debate, you should consider actually using some FACTS in support of your opinion. Like when I cite statistical information and then challenge you to contradict my analysis. And then BnB cites anecdotal evidence to support that view. You should then A) cite some fact (PS - stuff in the media is generally educated opinion, not FACT), and B) interpret it, and then C) show how it contradicts my opinion. [Edited on 25/3/2005 by WhoDat]
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.\"