This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts

saintswhodi · 04-06-2005, 03:14 PM

That\'s not enough cause I don\'t know the circumstances of them starting. I guess you would say look them up myself, God forbid everyone else is held to the standard of backing up their facts that you are setting, but seem to be the exception for. That\'s cool dude. I guess your blanket statement with no discovery of the circumstances of having new starters will have to be enough to back what you say. Thanks.

Danno · 04-06-2005, 03:23 PM

That\'s not enough cause I don\'t know the circumstances of them starting. I guess you would say look them up myself, God forbid everyone else is held to the standard of backing up their facts that you are setting, but seem to be the exception for. That\'s cool dude. I guess your blanket statement with no discovery of the circumstances of having new starters will have to be enough to back what you say. Thanks.

I\'ll repeat myself just for you.

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

FACTS AND A LINK. :casstet:
WHAT ELSE DO YOU REQUIRE, DNA? FINGERPRINTS? URINE SAMPLE?

[Edited on 6/4/2005 by Danno]

saintswhodi · 04-06-2005, 03:29 PM

So, if I post this article like Kelley did and take the first sentence like I did about the Saints needing to blow the team up and used the fact that they have been mediocre for the last four years as my fact, which it is, NOONE should be able to dispute that right? It is FACTS AND A LINK. Thanks for settling that. Let me try:

Is there any team in the league that needs to blow things up and start over more than the Saints? New Orleans has missed the playoffs four straight years, and 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.

Four straight years of seven to nine wins. Four straight offseasons without making major adjustments to the roster. Four straight years of looking like a Super Bowl team one week, an expansion team the next. Four straight years of mediocrity under Jim Haslett.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ram...?p=2497&cat=16
FACTS AND A LINK.

[Edited on 6/4/2005 by saintswhodi]

LKelley67 · 04-06-2005, 03:33 PM

looks indisputable to me

Danno · 04-06-2005, 03:39 PM

I just have 3 words...

You - are - a - moron!

Its nice to actually have the Facts support your Conclusions.

Author-\"no major changes to roster in four years\"

FACT- \"2002, 10 new starters.\"

Now tell me where that is an unreasonable rebuttal.

[Edited on 6/4/2005 by Danno]

saintswhodi · 04-06-2005, 03:46 PM

I\'ll take that as a compliment. :P

saintswhodi · 04-06-2005, 03:48 PM

Now tell me where that is an unreasonable rebuttal.

It\'s not in the least, I just asked you to qualify it in the hopes we could have a discussion about those changes and see if they were indeed major. No biggie. This moron was just asking for too much.

Danno · 04-06-2005, 03:58 PM

Now tell me where that is an unreasonable rebuttal.

It\'s not in the least, I just asked you to qualify it in the hopes we could have a discussion about those changes and see if they were indeed major. No biggie. This moron was just asking for too much.

Major or successful? He said major. I think 10 new starters is a major adjustment to the roster. Maybe not major improvements, but thats not what he said. He said \"major adjustments to the roster\".

[Edited on 6/4/2005 by Danno]

LKelley67 · 04-06-2005, 04:15 PM

danno i think there might be some common ground found if replacing the word changes with improvements.

i did a quickie check to compare changes/improvements...

2000 vs. 2004 and which is better

brooks brooks even
williams deuce 2004 (tho off last yr)
smith karney 2000
horn horn even
jackson stallworth 2000 for what he was doing then vs. potential
hall boo williams 2004
fontenot bentley 2000 as a center
naeole holland even
williams jacox 2004
roaf gandy 2000
turley riley 2000

offense about the same overall even though 2000 was 10th and 2004 16th ranked

howard howard even
whitehead grant 2004
johnson young 2000
glover anybody 2000
fields allen 2000
smith watson 2000
mitchell bockwoldt 2000
thomas mackenzie 2004
weary brown even
kelly bellamy 2004
knight jones 2000

distinctly better, whaddya expect tho 11th to 32nd

there is a big hole in the middle of the defensive line with only a young somewhat undersized good kid behind them now. then there were 2 all pro types with a veteran presence behind them. we\'re looking at serious potential problems at OT when we had all pro types there. --just to point out two spots. overall, i do not see the personnel moves cumulatively improving the product on the field regardless of what the record is. the coaching personality of a team should get better and become refined in time. after four years they are still searching for a personality. it appears more disjointed and out of sync now than then imo.

who cares if there was major change or no change if the bottomline stays unacceptable. if the record was 32-32 and i saw a team strategy and players growing, on the brink, ready to bust out, i\'d be cheerleading. i do not only not see that, i see less tools out there and incompetent or haphazard management of what there is to implement.

saintswhodi · 04-06-2005, 04:17 PM

Yes, but is that \"major\" adjustments or just numerous adjustments? That\'s what I was hoping to find out. If you traded a Roaf and moved a Turley over, I wouldn\'t call that major. Yes it is AN adjustment, but not major. Like I said, Philly getting TO is MAJOR. and that is just one player. Dillon and NE, MAJOR. Hell Kearse in Philly too. Those are major adjustments, but they are not numerous. The adjustments I recall us making were numerous, just not major. That\'s why I asked.

04-06-2005, 03:14 PM	#31
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts That\'s not enough cause I don\'t know the circumstances of them starting. I guess you would say look them up myself, God forbid everyone else is held to the standard of backing up their facts that you are setting, but seem to be the exception for. That\'s cool dude. I guess your blanket statement with no discovery of the circumstances of having new starters will have to be enough to back what you say. Thanks.

04-06-2005, 03:23 PM	#32
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 That\'s not enough cause I don\'t know the circumstances of them starting. I guess you would say look them up myself, God forbid everyone else is held to the standard of backing up their facts that you are setting, but seem to be the exception for. That\'s cool dude. I guess your blanket statement with no discovery of the circumstances of having new starters will have to be enough to back what you say. Thanks. I\'ll repeat myself just for you. 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 FACTS AND A LINK. :casstet: WHAT ELSE DO YOU REQUIRE, DNA? FINGERPRINTS? URINE SAMPLE? [Edited on 6/4/2005 by Danno]

04-06-2005, 03:29 PM	#33
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts So, if I post this article like Kelley did and take the first sentence like I did about the Saints needing to blow the team up and used the fact that they have been mediocre for the last four years as my fact, which it is, NOONE should be able to dispute that right? It is FACTS AND A LINK. Thanks for settling that. Let me try: Is there any team in the league that needs to blow things up and start over more than the Saints? New Orleans has missed the playoffs four straight years, and 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. Four straight years of seven to nine wins. Four straight offseasons without making major adjustments to the roster. Four straight years of looking like a Super Bowl team one week, an expansion team the next. Four straight years of mediocrity under Jim Haslett. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ram...?p=2497&cat=16 FACTS AND A LINK. [Edited on 6/4/2005 by saintswhodi]

04-06-2005, 03:33 PM	#34
LKelley67 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: baton rouge Posts: 2,540	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts looks indisputable to me

04-06-2005, 03:39 PM	#35
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 I just have 3 words... You - are - a - moron! Its nice to actually have the Facts support your Conclusions. Author-\"no major changes to roster in four years\" FACT- \"2002, 10 new starters.\" Now tell me where that is an unreasonable rebuttal. [Edited on 6/4/2005 by Danno]

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, 03:46 PM	#36
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts I\'ll take that as a compliment. :P

04-06-2005, 03:48 PM	#37
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts Now tell me where that is an unreasonable rebuttal. It\'s not in the least, I just asked you to qualify it in the hopes we could have a discussion about those changes and see if they were indeed major. No biggie. This moron was just asking for too much.

04-06-2005, 03:58 PM	#38
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 Now tell me where that is an unreasonable rebuttal. It\'s not in the least, I just asked you to qualify it in the hopes we could have a discussion about those changes and see if they were indeed major. No biggie. This moron was just asking for too much. Major or successful? He said major. I think 10 new starters is a major adjustment to the roster. Maybe not major improvements, but thats not what he said. He said \"major adjustments to the roster\". [Edited on 6/4/2005 by Danno]

04-06-2005, 04:15 PM	#39
LKelley67 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: baton rouge Posts: 2,540	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts danno i think there might be some common ground found if replacing the word changes with improvements. i did a quickie check to compare changes/improvements... 2000 vs. 2004 and which is better brooks brooks even williams deuce 2004 (tho off last yr) smith karney 2000 horn horn even jackson stallworth 2000 for what he was doing then vs. potential hall boo williams 2004 fontenot bentley 2000 as a center naeole holland even williams jacox 2004 roaf gandy 2000 turley riley 2000 offense about the same overall even though 2000 was 10th and 2004 16th ranked howard howard even whitehead grant 2004 johnson young 2000 glover anybody 2000 fields allen 2000 smith watson 2000 mitchell bockwoldt 2000 thomas mackenzie 2004 weary brown even kelly bellamy 2004 knight jones 2000 distinctly better, whaddya expect tho 11th to 32nd there is a big hole in the middle of the defensive line with only a young somewhat undersized good kid behind them now. then there were 2 all pro types with a veteran presence behind them. we\'re looking at serious potential problems at OT when we had all pro types there. --just to point out two spots. overall, i do not see the personnel moves cumulatively improving the product on the field regardless of what the record is. the coaching personality of a team should get better and become refined in time. after four years they are still searching for a personality. it appears more disjointed and out of sync now than then imo. who cares if there was major change or no change if the bottomline stays unacceptable. if the record was 32-32 and i saw a team strategy and players growing, on the brink, ready to bust out, i\'d be cheerleading. i do not only not see that, i see less tools out there and incompetent or haphazard management of what there is to implement.

04-06-2005, 04:17 PM	#40
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	This Guy Has Been Reading My Posts Yes, but is that \"major\" adjustments or just numerous adjustments? That\'s what I was hoping to find out. If you traded a Roaf and moved a Turley over, I wouldn\'t call that major. Yes it is AN adjustment, but not major. Like I said, Philly getting TO is MAJOR. and that is just one player. Dillon and NE, MAJOR. Hell Kearse in Philly too. Those are major adjustments, but they are not numerous. The adjustments I recall us making were numerous, just not major. That\'s why I asked.