Optimist vs Pessimist
 

35 years, 1 playoff win
I think the pessimists are kicking the crap outta the optimists.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

You know, I hate those terms. In this context, neither of them are worth squat.


For 4 years I\'ve heard how pessimistic I am about the Saints, and how I am so negative. Well if you look at what I\'ve suggested, I\'ve either been right, or I\'ve erred on the side of greater success - like last year, when the Saints underperformed compared to my expectations.

There is a difference between wanting the Saints to do better, and recognizing the reality of their chances. B/c I think their chances aren\'t great makes me less of a fan or a negative person? Even if when I say 8-8 or 9-7 and others say 13-3 and the Saints end up 8-8???


Things on this board get skewed due to emotional involvement all the time.

For example - there is a difference between saying that the Saints will never win anything with Brooks at QB b/c he sucks, and suggesting that an upgrade at the QB position is possible, worthwhile, and important.

Everyone on this board WANTS the Saints to win. But c\'mon - if you put the over/under on Saints wins this year at anything other than 8 (maybe 7 or 9), then you\'re just letting emotion come into play.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

I can\'t disagree with that, but I sure as hell can see that Brooks isn\'t the reason the over/under shouldn\'t be anything but 8. I continue to be amazed that, with our crappy running game, necessarilly weak offensive line, poor WR corp, and horrible defense, anyone could suggested a change at QB is what this team needs.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Hhhmm, offensive line, running game, and defense was better in 2003, and our QB led the league in lost fumbles. Some looked like he was untouched. What happened then? Somehow I am to believe if we had a QB that did not lead the league in lost fumbles in 2003, and did not lead the league in red zone turnovers this year, we would have been the same or worse? Wow. Have a nice time trying to sell that.

[Edited on 8/4/2005 by saintswhodi]

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Yeah and in 2003 Jake Delhomme had more turnovers than Aaron Brooks and the Panthers went to the super bowl.

So, it must not have been the turnovers that kept us from the playoffs, saintwhodi. Come on dude ... what\'s your explaination?!

And in 2002 we had the 2nd highest scoring offense in the NFC and missed the playoffs!! What\'s your explaination there, saintwhodi?

You don\'t want the truth do ya?

[Edited on 8/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Wow, you don\'t mention Jake, and you get a Jake convo. Nice. LEt me see if I can dig up a little something on Jake from the Superbowl year for ya Gumbo.

Passing
Carolina Att. Comp. Yds. TD Int.
Delhomme 33 16 323 3 0

HOLY CRAP!!! 3 Tds and no INTs against NE IN THE SUPERBOWL? Against the best team of this decade? Let me see what the Panthers defense did.

TEAM STATISTICS CAR NE
Total First Downs 17 29
Rushing 3 7
Passing 12 19
Penalty 2 3
Total Net Yardage 387 481
Total Offensive Plays 53 83
Avg. Gain per Offensive Play 7.3 5.8
Rushes 16 35
Yards Gained Rushing (Net) 92 127
Average Yards per Rush 5.8 3.6
Passes Attempted 33 48
Passes Completed 16 32
Had Intercepted 0 1
Tackled Attempting to Pass 2 0
Yards Lost Attempting to Pass 4 0
Yards Gained Passing (Net) 295 354

HOLY CRAP!!! They allowed 481 yards of offense to NE?? And they onlt lost by 3? Wow, I wonder who kept them in that SUPERBOWL??? LEt\'s look again.


Passing
Carolina Att. Comp. Yds. TD Int.
Delhomme 33 16 323 3 0

And wow, Carolina had 92 WHOLE YARDS rushing. Wow, so terrible defense and no running game IN THE SUPERBOWL, and who was their hero? Please don\'t bring any more Jake arguments to me.


This is the same argument you always make, so I am not gonna get too deep into it cause it serves no purpose. But to shoot this down:

Our beloved QB completed 53.6% of his passes in 2002. He had 15 INTs and 11 fumbles, 5 lost. So 20 turnovers to his 27 INTs. That is not even close to a 2 to 1 ratio. It is a 1.35 to one ratio. That\'s horrible. Our D was also NOT LAST in total D, not last in defense giving up points either. So surely, TWENTY TURNOVERS IN SIXTEEN GAMES may have played a teensy tiny part in not making the playoffs? Maybe? And our offensive line was not as bad then. So what\'s your excuse for us not making the playoffs?

[Edited on 8/4/2005 by saintswhodi]

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Brooks has finished 20th, 20th, 19th, and 8th in QB rating in four full years as a starter. Sure looks to me like he hovers around 20th or so - you know, right about at the bottom third of the league.

Is our defense a bigger problem? Yes. Show me one single guy who says that isn\'t the case. ONE.

What\'s funny to me is that you say:

The defense sucks
The offensive line sucks.
The running game is crappy.
Our WRs can\'t catch.

You\'ve just said that the New Orleans Saints have problems at 21 positions... the one you didn\'t criticize? The QB. And you say that I have an :censored: .

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

PEOPLE

PEOPLE

THE SAINTS DONT HAVE PROBLEMS

CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG???????


OK BROOKS IS A BIG PROBLEM 1.HE HAS 0 LEADERSHIP SKILLS AND 2.LIKE I SAY EVERY YEAR THIS AINT HIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR AINT LOOKING TO GOOD EITHER.

VENTURI IS A PROBLEM I SERIOUSLY DOUBT HE COULD COME UP WITH A SCHEME TO STOP THE DENHAM SPRINGS HS FOOTBALL TEAM MUCH LESS A MINOR COLLEGE OR JUCO

LOOMIS AND HASLETT AND OUR ENTIRE SCOUTING TEAM SUCKS BIG TIME CAN THEY JUDGE TALENT OR WHAT????

HMM WE RELEASE SAMMY AND SIGN TEBUCKY FOR A MILLION MORE THAN SAMMY WANTED?? HMMMM

ISNT SAMMY STILL ON A TEAM AND PRODUCTIVE???

SO AS YOU CAN SEE ITS NOT JUST BROOKS, ITS THE PEOPLE THAT KEEP TELING HIM HES A TOP 5 QB WHICH WE ALL KNOW IS BS

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

saintwhodi --

You are accusing me of making \"the same old arguement\"?

That\'s priceless coming from you :exclam:

In 2002 Brooks led the Saints offense to the 2nd most points in the NFC. I know you don\'t have an explaination for it, but deal with on your own terms.

And Jake Delhomme did indeed have more turnovers than Brooks when the Panthers went to the super bowl. I know you don\'t have an explaination for that either. Kinda shoots down your little theory on Brooks\' turnovers keeping us out of the playoffs. But, then again, facts mean very little to you. You still think Brooks \"locks\" on to Joe Horn when I clearly showed you otherwise. Those pesky facts again.



WhoDat --

You are facinated with QB Rating?

2003 - Jake Delhomme QB Rating - 80.6 - Super Bowl
2001 - Tom Brady QB Rating - 86.5 - Super Bowl
2003 - Tom Brady QB Rating - 85.9 - Super Bowl
2003 - Aaron Brooks QB Rating - 88.8 - wow that did get us there?

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Laughable at best. I gave two arguments that shot swiss cheese through everything you said, and I get zero facts or stats back. I get \"the offense was 2nd in the league in scoring\" yet you belittle the o-line at every turn and talk crap about Deuce in another thread, as if our QB was the reason for that ranking. Nice sell there. I am sure there are some immigrants who don\'t yet understand football you can sell that too. Explain Jake being FAR from terrible in the Superbowl, when his defense and running game were crap. Explain our QB completing 53.6% of his passes in a season, and having 20 turnovers in the year in question. You can\'t, so you bluster and flap your arms. Come out from behind the curtain wizard, we aren\'t in Oz any more. You are being exposed as a fraud.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Nice try. But ... I\'m not going to let you turn the table on me. NO SIR.

As soon as you answer my questions then we can move on to your little stat analysis.

Question number one:

1. How did the Panthers get to the super bowl when Delhomme had more turnovers than Brooks?

2. How did our offense score the 2nd most points in the NFC in 2002?

Don\'t want to answer? No problem ... Stop while you are ahead. :cool:

[Edited on 8/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

i think im both depends on the week. haha

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Question one, did Jake or AB lead the league in LOST FUMBLES? AB. Was Jake a first year starter, or 3rd year like AB? First. Jake had 22 total turnovers, AB had 19, yeah huge difference. Nice call. How did the Panthers make the Superbowl? A LOT of good fortune, and a QB with a heart and half a brain.

Question 2, because we had Deuce and Joe Horn, and an awesome rookie season from Donte for the time he played. Little to do with a twenty turnover 53.6% cpmpletion percentage QB. Your turn.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

You said exactly what I wanted you to say.

It\'s obvious that you give AB no credit for the offense in 2002. And you give him all the blame for every other year. And you called me a fraud? Dude, I\'m not going to belitte you like you did me. But, the only one being exposed is you.

And furthermore ... turnovers are turnovers. Delhomme had 22 and Brooks had 19. Yet the Panthers went to the superbowl despite those turnovers.

Again, I\'m not going to belitte you. I just post the facts. I never thought I\'d change your mind to begin with. I just wanted all of this out there for the world to read.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Good Fortune? What? You mean Luck? Whodat has raked me over the coals for suggesting such a thing -- which I did suggest and I do agree with. Where ya at Whodat? Please explain to Whodi like you did to me about how there\'s no such thing as luck in the NFL. LMAO

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Gumbo, if you keep falsely claiming to prove points just so you can avoid answering queries that YOU have no answer for, I am sure people will be able to read for themselves what\'s going on. But just so everyone understands, Gumbo is calling me out cause I believe a first year starter who QB\'d his team to the Superbowl and single-handedly almost won it deserves a little more slack than a 5 year starter who still can\'t complete near 60% of his passes, leads the league in lost fumbles in his 3rd year, and leads the league in red zone turnovers his 4th, running his mouth the whole time. We all understand Gumbo.

saintfan, oh yes, luck had plenty to do with the Panthers good fortunes. I know one game we should have beaten them in OT, and Deuce fumbles at the two or something after a long run, they turned around scored and won. I mean, that\'s a little luck. And all the close games they won? Someone was smiling on them. Who can rake me over the coals for saying that if he likes.

[Edited on 8/4/2005 by saintswhodi]

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Falsely claiming to prove points? Hey, dude, you\'re the one always talking about Brooks\' turnovers and how they\'ve been holding us back.

And how do I respond to your statement about Brooks\' turnovers? Well, I let you know that Delhomme had more and he went to the super bowl. So did Tom Brady.

If that ain\'t proving a point, then I don\'t know what is !!

That doesn\'t mean I like Brooks turning the ball over and it doesn\'t mean that Brooks doesn\'t need to lower his turnovers. It just means that that isn\'t the reason for us missing the playoffs.

Unless you can explain to me how Delhomme and Tom Brady got their teams to the playoffs with all of those turnovers. And an intelligent answer would be nice. And the little snide comments can be left out as well.

I\'m sure other members can read too, saintwhodi. But my comparisions are solid.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

How are your comparisons solid? I have no idea how you draw these conclusions. My comments are not snide, they are coming from a point of being perplexed. You have proved NOTHING. We weren\'t even talking about Tom Brady so how did you prove anything about him? Anyone who can read can go back and see that. So what are you proving? NOTHING. EVER. I have given you answers you just wanna ignore and refuse to answer the questions I posed to you. You are like the boxer that raises his hand at the end of a fight even though he got his head beat in. Come on man. Let\'s get real for a second.

Delhomme was a first year starter. Brady is considered the second coming of Montana. And one of the best if not THE best QB in the league. You can\'t do better than to find a first year starter who in his second year VASTLY IMPROVED his numbers on a WORSE TEAM and a QB who has 3 Superbowl rings? Both have been to a Superbowl, where is your boy? Do you want someone to say they have better teams? Is that what you are trying to harp on? That\'s no point at all. We aren\'t talking about our QB getting us to the Superbowl, we are talking about simply MAKING THE PLAYOFFS. Both of these QBs went to the Superbowl in their first years starting. Bledsoe couldn\'t do it, Brady did. QB made the TEAM better. Panthers were 1-15, then 7-9 before Delhomme. With Jake they go to the Superbowl. QB MADE THE TEAM BETTER. So what point have you proven? None, again, but keep raising your arms. Punch drunkedness is excused. :P

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Ahh, it\'s just like the good old days... ;)

Apparently the draft is coming just a couple weeks too late to keep the \"AB discussion ban\" going ... suits me. I\'ve always kinda liked the AB debates.

But \"he-who-must-not-be-named\" vs. AB??? That one goes WAY back...

Keep it up fellas, I\'m enjoying it (not sarcasm)

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

I like you, saintwhodi. But there is no need for \"snide\" little comments like this one:

I don\'t care why you say things like that ... there is no need for it as things can turn ugly very quickly when things like that are said. And I don\'t particularly like being called a fraud. Can\'t we do without those kind of comments. I\'m not going to respond with anything simular and I\'d really like to be left out when it comes to comments like that. But, no hard feelings.



So Delhomme turning the ball over has no bearing on how QBs turning the ball over affects their teams? Are we only to look at Brooks and the offense in a vaccum? IMHO, that would be pretty closed minded. Can\'t we put Brooks\' turnovers in some kind of context. IMO, without context there is no arguement.

And you and I have discussed Brady\'s turnovers before. As well as many other QBs who had about the same number of turnovers as Brooks. Surly you remember. If not then I can post them again.

[Edited on 8/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Ya know, that statement was not meant as a direct relation to you, it was a comment on your smoke and mirrors approach. The wizard was a fraud who used smoke and mirrors, and I used in as to how I saw the current approach you are using. You are not a fraud(most times, remember the AB QB challenge thread ;) ), but this smoke and mirrors approach to your argument was IMO. Don\'t take it personal. We are beyond those days.

Second thing, I won\'t even continue with this debate, it shows me clearly why I decided to refrain a month or so back. You don\'t read what is said to you, introduce items from previous arguments that have no bearing on this one, and make the same statements over and over and never discuss their rebuttles. Maybe someone else can have some fun continuing.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Just so I\'m clear, saintwhodi ... I really don\'t take many things personally. What you said REALLY didn\'t bother me at all.

However, its become clear to me that the guys who run this board have a hard time controlling things and I really don\'t want to put them in the middle of it. I think Halo and JoeSam will tell you that I\'ve caused my fair share of problems here at B&G and they\'ve been very fair to me and I just want to treat them with more respect. Not that I won\'t stir the pot at times, though ... :D

Oh yeah ... I read what you post but you get so far off track and I just bring it back on point. That\'s all I\'m doing.

We can drop this discussion. No hard feelings.

[Edited on 9/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

(1) Arguments can be made with our making comments about the other posters\' intentions. This is where many things get way off track. If someone is not responding to items put forth in a way you feel is adquate, it suffices to ask them to respond - if they do not, drop it. Furthermore, comments about other posters\' behaviors is almost always irrelevant information wise. Sure lots of us feel like we\'re friends here and have a good time poking fun at each other, but I feel like sometimes it sets a bad example for new posters. So in my role as a moderator, I ask people to please stop trying to figure out why people do things on the main forum (you can always PM them or put it in the everything else board). Just so no one takes this the wrong way: that is for everyone, and I do it only insofar as my job description seems to make it necessary.

(2) Imagine someone gave you the following argument:
1. The Super Bowl can be won by teams that turns the ball over nearly 30 times (and it has happened at least twice)
2. A given team, call it X, turns the ball over 25 times.
Therefore,
3. Team X didn\'t win the SB because of turnovers.
Which entails,
4. Team X didn\'t make the playoffs because of turnovers.

Does that argument sound right?

I think that turnovers do matter, but it isn\'t actually the number of them that matters most. It is the nature of the turnover - that is why there is a stat for points off turnovers. That isn\'t even the most important thing to consider - it seems to me when during the game the turnover occurs, where on the field, the score at the time and so on. Thus, turnovers is an ambiguous stat when evaluating an offense. This is why Whodi\'s red zone turnover stat is more interesting than a general turnover stat.

(3) No one player is responsible for our offensive or defensive rankings. Sure arguments can be made for how much of the responsibility lies on one player, but any argument that points to just one guy in a team game give me reason to pause.

[Edited on 9/4/2005 by JKool]

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

hey gumbo is always good to get some post out of people. got to like that. im not even sure he beleives what he says. even if he does were all the better for it

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Like I said, smoke and mirrors. But let me show you why I directly answered both questions in response to this from you Gum which not only didn\'t happen, but went off onto a tangent. Like I said, smoke and mirrors. It\'s all good bro. No hard feelings. I know you gotta do your thing to keep it hopping around here, and defending some of the points you make doesn\'t do that so there\'s other little tricks to use. IT\'s all good. We have plenty more times to disagree about our boy. Have a good one. ;)

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Actually whodi they made the SB because of a top rated D!!! That did make a little difference!

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

how come realists get labeled pessimists?
LOL
ya know it happens in most things beyond the saints world as well.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

I\'d venture to say that most pessimists just feel they\'re being realists.
Some people just focus on whats wrong. (Pessimists)
Some people just focus on whats right. (Optimists)
I think both sides think they\'re realists and feel the other side are idiots.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

To continue in that vein, it\'s also important to consider the turnover ratio of the entire team. I\'ve not looked up the stats officially, but I remeber the \'03 Panthers pretty well, and I\'d venture to say they had a pretty good overall turnover ratio in spite of how many times JD turned the ball over.

I\'ve never been shy in my criicisms of AB, but I\'ll not go so far as to say I think he\'s the only thing keeping us back. Football is a team game, and unique in the fact that offenses and defenses are seperate units with different players entirely. It takes a strong effort on both sides of the ball to win the big one.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

You\'re probably right, but then how could you feel you\'re realistic when you\'ve consistently predicted that the Saints would be 11-5, 12-4, or 13-3, would go to the playoffs, would have a top 10 defense, and would have a top 5 offense behind a pro bowl QB????

Zero right, but \"some fans\" still know what\'s really going on around here. LMAO.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

People love to complicate things.

First off ... When someone tells me Brooks\' turnovers is what has kept this team from the playoffs, then I have to take that into consideration.

But, I have to compare those turnovers to SOMETHING. It has got to be put into some kind of \"context\".

If Delhomme can turn the ball over MORE than Brooks and the Panthers can go to the superbowl, then I have to really question whether or not Brooks\' turnovers have been the problem.

The difference between Jake and Aaron\'s turnovers is Jake had a defense that could minimize the damage and Aaron had a defense that couldn\'t stop anyone.

Simple, huh? Yup ... but we got folks that want to bend and stretch the truth. Or flat out make false statements.

Now, some of you guys can complicate things and make Brooks out to be the \"failure\" of this team. Do what you want. It makes no difference to me.


[Edited on 9/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

I\'ve never predicted any of those things. Much less consistently predicted them. Are you referring to someone else by chance?

Line up 20 losers and I\'ll bet you all 20 are Pessimists.
Line up 20 winners and I\'ll bet you all 20 are Optimists.
But I\'ll bet you all 20 pessismists will claim they\'re simply realists! ;)

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Wasn\'t referring to you Danno....

I don\'t know that your guess is accurate. I was successful at every level in which I participated in athletics - including winning multiple State Championships in HS and placing respectably at the Division I level. By all accounts, I was classified as a \"winner\" in my athletic career. I\'m labeled a pessimist around here b/c I continue to think the Saints will be 8-8 with this staff until they prove me wrong. But I guess by your account I\'m a \"loser\"... :) Ask Billy what he won, and see if it holds true. :)

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Predicting 8-8 doesn\'t make you a pessimist.
I\'m referring to those that harp on everything negative and refuse to acknowledge anything positive.

Such as, Saints sign player X.

The pessimist will compile a list of negatives associated with this player, and completely ignore the positives, and claim he\'s just being realistic. They usually live in a van down by the river.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

So I guess that means those who questioned the Orlando Ruff, Derrick Rodgers, Tesucky Jones, Jonathon Sullivan acquisitions are pessimists, even thought they were right. Okay. I have yet to hear anyone poo-poo getting Dwight Smith, so how does your theory hold? Could it be cause Dwight Smith is widely considered a good player and could actually help? Oh my. What about Mayberry? I have heard noone have a problem with it if he was going to play guard. But if someone questions the fact he may be playing RT after only doing it for 4 games in his career they are a pessimist? OR someone sees he has been injured the past two years, that should be ignored? NFL teams don\'t ignore it. It\'s called a scouting report. I guess the person who thinks every player the Saints sign is gonna be a hall of famer is the actual realist. Nice.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Strike a nerve Pessee?

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Call \'em what you will. Pessimists, doom and gloomers, negative agenda folks, realists, moonshiners, etc., etc,..

But, the way I see it, some of you guys dwell on the past way too much. Now , not making the playoffs for 4-years is good reason to be weary of this team.

But some of you take Saints\' bashing to a whole new level.

And you come to a Saints\' fan board to do it. No one wants to hear that stuff all the time.

If I wanted that I could go to a Falcon board.

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Well, obvious falsehoods have to be exposed, and this is becoming an almost daily occurence. Strikes no nerve with me. I guess I can\'t have the every guy is a hall of famer who wears black and gold motto Danno. Hope it works out for ya. How\'s it been so far?

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

So I guess people want smoke blown up their but all day. We don\'t get enough of that from Haslett and the FO? And aren\'t all these \"pessimists\" excited about the possibility of the draft? Aren\'t they happy we got Dwight Smith at least? Most rated the offseason a C so far cause we haven\'t gotten a LB, I guess they are pessimistic and it should be all As. :icon_bs:

Optimist vs Pessimist
 

Guys, this is starting to get to personal. Chill out please.