This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts

LordOfEntropy · 04-06-2005, 02:28 PM

Actually guys, we\'re not (and haven\'t been) far from being a pretty strong team. I can think of one single act, just one discrete tweak, that would\'ve has us in the playoffs the last couple of years running.

Release Rick Venturi. Get a reasonably talented defensive coordinator.

Think about it. If we\'d had Mora jr. in here (who was available), or anyone of decent caliber, we\'d have been in the playoffs.... even with McCarthy\'s predictability, even with AB\'s embarrassments, etc. I sincerely believe that.

And if anyone else agrees with me then... why scrap the whole team and start all over?

The article above gave me that impression. \"Everything\'s broke, they\'ve always sucked, they always will. Scrap everything, top to bottom. Shake it up or expect no results\".

And I don\'t buy that.

I tend to agree with Danno that this guy draw blanket assumptions - without extolling valid easons for doing so.

And further, I think his conclusions are just... wrong.

Danno · 04-06-2005, 02:37 PM

quote:We HAVEN\"T made major changes at any point.
See 2002.

Uh.... Danno? I remember 2002. What were those major changes again?

Uhhh WhoDat, I don\'t thinkyou do.

Despite having 10 new starters in 2002, the Saints posted a 9-7 record that included a pair of memorable victories over the Super Bowl XXXVII-Champion Tampa Bay Buccaneers. New Orleans led the NFC with a team-record 432 points that season, while the special teams emerged as one of the league\'s most opportunistic units

http://www.neworleanssaints.com/coachbio.cfm?coachid=10

Hmmm, 10 new starters? I\'d say that constitutes major changes. But we\'re mediocre so don\'t let facts get in the way of the pessimism onslaught.

[Edited on 6/4/2005 by Danno]

LKelley67 · 04-06-2005, 02:42 PM

i\'ll just add his intro...

if they were just a bad football team, that would be one thing. But theyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢re something far worse ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â€Âœ a mediocre football team.

NOT a bad team, NOT no results- just more of the same is likely until the formula, whether staff or personnel is overhauled.

i hate to repeat but minnesota has had a very similar mo. they even snuck into the playoffs last seaon. but is was all too apparent that the same approach was only going to lead to the same results. so they shook it up. i personally think the move to defensive toughness is the way to win in the nfl. will their efforts pay off? maybe, maybe not. i still give them credit for not standing pat and being satisfied with a team that had weaknesses so apparent that they might make the playoffs (12 out of 32 is no great feat) but not contend for more.

[Edited on 6/4/2005 by LKelley67]

GoldenTomb · 04-06-2005, 02:45 PM

We haven\'t been far from a pretty strong team??? Ok...you are entitled to your opinion.

Why scrap the team??? Because this same group has been in place for some time now. There are NO position battles for any main players, the coach is getting an extension after an 8-8 season. What reason do they have to do anything different?

Will you concede that there are players in the NFL that don\'t give a hoot about winning, just as long as they get stats and get paid? Do you concede that there are FO personnel that also don\'t care about winning, just as long as the organization makes money and they keep their jobs.

Because you know what, that is exactly what I see with the New Orleans Saints.

You have players on some teams that talk about watching film and training on improving their game. We have players that complain about contracts and \"fake love\" on the team. We have coaches that talk about being on freakin steriods, as if anyone cares. This team is very much unfocused and not acting like a team that cares about winning. Why should they care. They are getting paid millions of dollars for not putting in much work at all(relatively speaking).

I think that attitude wise, we are light-years away from being a very strong team. Sure this team has all of the talent, but none of the heart and desire, and it\'s not hard to see that if you just look. I think people are doing what the Saints FO is doing....looking at the numbers and stats on a player and measuring nothing else. It starts at the top for sure, but there is evidence all across the roster of this mentality.

Sure the Saints may look like a playoff team on paper, but that\'s why they play the games, right?

[Edited on 6/4/2005 by GoldenTomb]

baronm · 04-06-2005, 02:51 PM

Release Rick Venturi. Get a reasonably talented defensive coordinator.

I was greatly suprsied that this didn\'t happen. I do think that that would atleast get us into the playoffs.

LordOfEntropy · 04-06-2005, 02:57 PM

Alright Tomb, you made valid points.

So... what would you do to correct the problems? Scrap the entire team? Entire coaching staff? Entire front office? All of them, start over?

Bye-bye Deuce, bye-bye Horn, bye-bye Grant? But that\'s what the guy in the article is suggesting. Or at least, that\'s the impression the article gives me.

I know there are problems. And I further know they are fixable. But will management fix them? Nah, I don\'t think so. Management won\'t get it right.

But.... sinking the whole ship is no way to kill a rat. Starting over from scratch is not the right answer for the Saints problems. There\'s talent there. Surgical corrections need to be made. They start in management. Specifically Venturi. Probably Loomis.

GoldenTomb · 04-06-2005, 03:04 PM

I don\'t think he meant scrap the entire team. No team ever does that. No way that we would get rid of Deuce, Bentley, Smith, Grant, Watson and McKenzie. But everyone else....I think most everyone else is expendable over time. Due to the salary cap and the penalties that would come with cutting players, it couldn\'t all be done at once anyway. But something has to happen to show these players that there will be consequences for substandard performance.

FO....definitely get rid of all of them. They are the cause of all of this.

saintswhodi · 04-06-2005, 03:05 PM

Hmmm, 10 new starters? I\'d say that constitutes major changes. But we\'re mediocre so don\'t let facts get in the way of the pessimism onslaught.

Danno,

A) can you name these starters
B) who did they replace
C) were they improvements over their replacements or fill ins cause of stupid moves.

Show some facts. Names and replacements please. I don\'t like blanket statements without facts, remember what you told us? Was someone hurt that they had to get a new starter? Name names. Backwards is a direction too, so if new starters equals backwards steps, I wouldn\'t consider that major changes. A major change to me is TO going to Philly, one player, HUGE IMPACT. Dillon going to NE, one player HUGE IMPACT. Atlanta blowing up to get Vick. One player, HUGE IMPACT. We could have 22 new starters, if they all suck, that\'s not major change, that\'s major stupidity.

LordOfEntropy · 04-06-2005, 03:07 PM

Now -that- I\'ll buy. That\'s more reasonable.

And LKelly put it very well in the thread just above. Much better than the guy in the original article did.

Danno · 04-06-2005, 03:10 PM

Hmmm, 10 new starters? I\'d say that constitutes major changes. But we\'re mediocre so don\'t let facts get in the way of the pessimism onslaught.

Danno,

A) can you name these starters
B) who did they replace
C) were they improvements over their replacements or fill ins cause of stupid moves.

Show some facts. Names and replacements please. I don\'t like blanket statements without facts, remember what you told us? Was someone hurt that they had to get a new starter? Name names. Backwards is a direction too, so if new starters equals backwards steps, I wouldn\'t consider that major changes. A major change to me is TO going to Philly, one player, HUGE IMPACT. Dillon going to NE, one player HUGE IMPACT. Atlanta blowing up to get Vick. One player, HUGE IMPACT. We could have 22 new starters, if they all suck, that\'s not major change, that\'s major stupidity.

Look \'em up yourself. I gave you a fact-\"10 new starters\" thats nearly half the whole starting roster. Thats major change. Try and blow it off if you like.

He said we never had major changes. I showed a FACT that we had 10 new starters in 2002. If thats not enough for you what the hell is?

My freaking bad. But when he said \"Four straight offseasons without making major adjustments to the roster\" I thought he meant \"Four straight offseasons without making major adjustments to the roster\".
I also may have erred by thinking that replacing half your teams starters was major adjustments to the roster. :casstet:

[Edited on 6/4/2005 by Danno]

04-06-2005, 02:28 PM	#21
LordOfEntropy 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cary, NC Posts: 1,838	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts Actually guys, we\'re not (and haven\'t been) far from being a pretty strong team. I can think of one single act, just one discrete tweak, that would\'ve has us in the playoffs the last couple of years running. Release Rick Venturi. Get a reasonably talented defensive coordinator. Think about it. If we\'d had Mora jr. in here (who was available), or anyone of decent caliber, we\'d have been in the playoffs.... even with McCarthy\'s predictability, even with AB\'s embarrassments, etc. I sincerely believe that. And if anyone else agrees with me then... why scrap the whole team and start all over? The article above gave me that impression. \"Everything\'s broke, they\'ve always sucked, they always will. Scrap everything, top to bottom. Shake it up or expect no results\". And I don\'t buy that. I tend to agree with Danno that this guy draw blanket assumptions - without extolling valid easons for doing so. And further, I think his conclusions are just... wrong.
	can anyone help me id this tune? it goes thwap thwap boom tch boom tch boom tch. Qui a laissez sortir les chiens!

04-06-2005, 02:37 PM	#22
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,723	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts quote:We HAVEN\"T made major changes at any point. See 2002. Uh.... Danno? I remember 2002. What were those major changes again? Uhhh WhoDat, I don\'t thinkyou do. Despite having 10 new starters in 2002, the Saints posted a 9-7 record that included a pair of memorable victories over the Super Bowl XXXVII-Champion Tampa Bay Buccaneers. New Orleans led the NFC with a team-record 432 points that season, while the special teams emerged as one of the league\'s most opportunistic units http://www.neworleanssaints.com/coachbio.cfm?coachid=10 Hmmm, 10 new starters? I\'d say that constitutes major changes. But we\'re mediocre so don\'t let facts get in the way of the pessimism onslaught. [Edited on 6/4/2005 by Danno]

04-06-2005, 02:42 PM	#23
LKelley67 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: baton rouge Posts: 2,540	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts i\'ll just add his intro... if they were just a bad football team, that would be one thing. But theyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢re something far worse ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â€Âœ a mediocre football team. NOT a bad team, NOT no results- just more of the same is likely until the formula, whether staff or personnel is overhauled. i hate to repeat but minnesota has had a very similar mo. they even snuck into the playoffs last seaon. but is was all too apparent that the same approach was only going to lead to the same results. so they shook it up. i personally think the move to defensive toughness is the way to win in the nfl. will their efforts pay off? maybe, maybe not. i still give them credit for not standing pat and being satisfied with a team that had weaknesses so apparent that they might make the playoffs (12 out of 32 is no great feat) but not contend for more. [Edited on 6/4/2005 by LKelley67]

04-06-2005, 02:45 PM	#24
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts We haven\'t been far from a pretty strong team??? Ok...you are entitled to your opinion. Why scrap the team??? Because this same group has been in place for some time now. There are NO position battles for any main players, the coach is getting an extension after an 8-8 season. What reason do they have to do anything different? Will you concede that there are players in the NFL that don\'t give a hoot about winning, just as long as they get stats and get paid? Do you concede that there are FO personnel that also don\'t care about winning, just as long as the organization makes money and they keep their jobs. Because you know what, that is exactly what I see with the New Orleans Saints. You have players on some teams that talk about watching film and training on improving their game. We have players that complain about contracts and \"fake love\" on the team. We have coaches that talk about being on freakin steriods, as if anyone cares. This team is very much unfocused and not acting like a team that cares about winning. Why should they care. They are getting paid millions of dollars for not putting in much work at all(relatively speaking). I think that attitude wise, we are light-years away from being a very strong team. Sure this team has all of the talent, but none of the heart and desire, and it\'s not hard to see that if you just look. I think people are doing what the Saints FO is doing....looking at the numbers and stats on a player and measuring nothing else. It starts at the top for sure, but there is evidence all across the roster of this mentality. Sure the Saints may look like a playoff team on paper, but that\'s why they play the games, right? [Edited on 6/4/2005 by GoldenTomb]
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591

04-06-2005, 02:51 PM	#25
baronm 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 954	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts Release Rick Venturi. Get a reasonably talented defensive coordinator. I was greatly suprsied that this didn\'t happen. I do think that that would atleast get us into the playoffs.
baronm 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 954

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

04-06-2005, 02:57 PM	#26
LordOfEntropy 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cary, NC Posts: 1,838	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts Alright Tomb, you made valid points. So... what would you do to correct the problems? Scrap the entire team? Entire coaching staff? Entire front office? All of them, start over? Bye-bye Deuce, bye-bye Horn, bye-bye Grant? But that\'s what the guy in the article is suggesting. Or at least, that\'s the impression the article gives me. I know there are problems. And I further know they are fixable. But will management fix them? Nah, I don\'t think so. Management won\'t get it right. But.... sinking the whole ship is no way to kill a rat. Starting over from scratch is not the right answer for the Saints problems. There\'s talent there. Surgical corrections need to be made. They start in management. Specifically Venturi. Probably Loomis.
	can anyone help me id this tune? it goes thwap thwap boom tch boom tch boom tch. Qui a laissez sortir les chiens!

04-06-2005, 03:04 PM	#27
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts I don\'t think he meant scrap the entire team. No team ever does that. No way that we would get rid of Deuce, Bentley, Smith, Grant, Watson and McKenzie. But everyone else....I think most everyone else is expendable over time. Due to the salary cap and the penalties that would come with cutting players, it couldn\'t all be done at once anyway. But something has to happen to show these players that there will be consequences for substandard performance. FO....definitely get rid of all of them. They are the cause of all of this.
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591

04-06-2005, 03:05 PM	#28
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts Hmmm, 10 new starters? I\'d say that constitutes major changes. But we\'re mediocre so don\'t let facts get in the way of the pessimism onslaught. Danno, A) can you name these starters B) who did they replace C) were they improvements over their replacements or fill ins cause of stupid moves. Show some facts. Names and replacements please. I don\'t like blanket statements without facts, remember what you told us? Was someone hurt that they had to get a new starter? Name names. Backwards is a direction too, so if new starters equals backwards steps, I wouldn\'t consider that major changes. A major change to me is TO going to Philly, one player, HUGE IMPACT. Dillon going to NE, one player HUGE IMPACT. Atlanta blowing up to get Vick. One player, HUGE IMPACT. We could have 22 new starters, if they all suck, that\'s not major change, that\'s major stupidity.

04-06-2005, 03:07 PM	#29
LordOfEntropy 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cary, NC Posts: 1,838	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts Now -that- I\'ll buy. That\'s more reasonable. And LKelly put it very well in the thread just above. Much better than the guy in the original article did.

04-06-2005, 03:10 PM	#30
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,723	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts Hmmm, 10 new starters? I\'d say that constitutes major changes. But we\'re mediocre so don\'t let facts get in the way of the pessimism onslaught. Danno, A) can you name these starters B) who did they replace C) were they improvements over their replacements or fill ins cause of stupid moves. Show some facts. Names and replacements please. I don\'t like blanket statements without facts, remember what you told us? Was someone hurt that they had to get a new starter? Name names. Backwards is a direction too, so if new starters equals backwards steps, I wouldn\'t consider that major changes. A major change to me is TO going to Philly, one player, HUGE IMPACT. Dillon going to NE, one player HUGE IMPACT. Atlanta blowing up to get Vick. One player, HUGE IMPACT. We could have 22 new starters, if they all suck, that\'s not major change, that\'s major stupidity. Look \'em up yourself. I gave you a fact-\"10 new starters\" thats nearly half the whole starting roster. Thats major change. Try and blow it off if you like. He said we never had major changes. I showed a FACT that we had 10 new starters in 2002. If thats not enough for you what the hell is? My freaking bad. But when he said \"Four straight offseasons without making major adjustments to the roster\" I thought he meant \"Four straight offseasons without making major adjustments to the roster\". I also may have erred by thinking that replacing half your teams starters was major adjustments to the roster. :casstet: [Edited on 6/4/2005 by Danno]