Riddle me this:?
 

Wow, how many people are on their last legs with this team:

Brooks
Sullivan
Haz
Possibly Stallworth
Venturi
Loomis
Gandy
Allen
Carney

Anyone else on the hot seat? Holy crap.

Riddle me this:?
 

Keep it civil, Gumbo. Smiley faces no longer buy you a free pass.
And that goes for everyone. Keep it civil.

Riddle me this:?
 

I don\'t know about ANY of those guys. But I do know what I heard Haslett and Loomis say about Sullivan. It do or die time as far as Sully being with the Saints.

I know it\'s the offseason and everything and you don\'t believe them in the offseason. But they sounded pretty serious to me ... :D

Riddle me this:?
 

I just gave you 4. Others in this thread have given you more. You can choose to ignore them if you\'d like. It isn\'t surprising coming from a guy who sees no reason to think that Haslett doesn\'t deserve essentially an infinite number of chances to prove that he can make this team better than 8-8. You\'re right Billy - the laws of probability ensure that at some point between now and infinity, the Saints will have another winning season if Haslett stays....


Here is the definitive question Billy:

Has Jonathan Sullivan, at any level what so ever, played any football in the last two years that you could call good? Moreover has he done anything above and beyond his talk to show that he is making the progress he promised?

Now answer those same questions for McPherson. If you can\'t see the glaring difference there, you never will.

Riddle me this:?
 

What did I say? Am I missing something?

Riddle me this:?
 

CLEARLY you missed my point.

I\'m not saying fans shouldn\'t be upset more with Sully than McPhearson.

What I\'m saying is I don\'t see why fans aren\'t willing to give Sullivan ONE more chance?!

Sully doesn\'t get one more chance but McPhearson, who is a proven criminal, gets another chance? Why so hard on Sullivan? Why NOT one more chance for Sullivan?

Riddle me this:?
 

And just who gets to decide right or wrong reasons?

I hardly believe that he will have zero impact on your life. Especially since you claim to be a Saints fan.

I don\'t think anyone has said they\'re not pulling for him. I want him to be the best DT in the league. That\'d suit me just fine. If he could just be a worthy starter I\'d be happy.

I think it\'s easy enough for most of us to say that, even had we spent only one 1st round pick on him, we\'d still be disappointed in his performance.

Riddle me this:?
 

Scotty --

This is probably going to be my last post on this thread. Things are getting kind of ridiculous.

1. I didn\'t say I got to decide what the right reasons were. I simple said that it\'s possible some people are be too hard on Sullivan for the wrong reasons. Or that\'s what I meant. Is that impossible?

2. If the Saints move out of New Orleans and never play another game, it really won\'t affect my life. Except for what team I watch on Sundays.

Here\'s the thing:

Why NOT one more chance for Sulliavan?

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Riddle me this:?
 

He\'s on the team isn\'t he?? He\'s going to get his shot this preseason and probably regular season too, right?

Did anyone suggest that he get cut outright? Who said that?

Riddle me this:?
 

Who has suggested Sully to get cut outright? Many people right here on this board. You haven\'t heard?

I don\'t think I\'ll \"out\" them right now, though. Hopefully they\'ll speak up and tell you who they are.

Do you agree with cutting Sullivan outright?

Riddle me this:?
 

I think he deserves to be cut immediately, but I don\'t think it\'s in the team\'s best interest because of what was paid to get him and what\'s been paid to him since.

I know you can find a quote on me saying we should bring him to camp work his tail off and cut him then if he\'s not any better.

Riddle me this:?
 

I know I said I wish we COULD curt him right now, but right in line with Scotty, it is not in the best interest of the team, at this point. One more year like last year and I really will not care if it\'s in our best interest or not.

Riddle me this:?
 

I\'ll just throw in my .02 to get to the crux of what Billy seems to be concerned about.

1. Sullivan was drafted to come in, start and be our franchise DT. He was paid as a top 10 pick, and continues to be paid according to his top 10 contract. He has failed so miserably at this that he is not even dressing out for games. It\'s hard for anyone to embrace a steaming, stinking, lazy pile of monkeycrap. (or monkey-carp, if you will)

2. According to some, AB is the greatest QB this team will ever have and will be the franchise QB for years to come.

3. If that is true, then McPherson was drafted in the 5th round as a project for depth. So, if he even makes it onto the team after camp, he will at best be the #2 QB but will most likely be trying to beat out Kingsbury or Finlan for the #3 spot.

4. Pretty easy to embrace a guy whose legal/ethical/moral failings don\'t cost much money, may not even make it onto the final roster, realizes that what he did was wrong, is trying to make things right and treasures having the chance to even come to camp. It is a night and day difference of attitude from the top 6 pick who doesn\'t care whether he plays or not, since he\'s still getting paid.

5. Bottom line--some of us admire that McPherson seems to be trying to make a change and realizes how lucky he is to have a chance to make a living playing a game we all love. For me, I like and respect his attitude. Now I can\'t peer into the guy\'s soul and tell you what he\'s really thinking/feeling/whatever, but I like what I\'m hearing.

6. By the way, AB will most likely be the starter for this team. Being the starter doesn\'t make me love him any more either.

Seems like this thread is all about loving Brooks by attacking a kid who made some dumb decisions and has owned up to them like a man and accepted the consequences like a man. I think what McPherson is doing now isn\'t something to be sneered at, no matter what you think of AB.

Riddle me this:?
 

For what Sullivan has done, he probably deserves to get shipped out of town.

This guys gets paid a fortune to play football and he shows no desire to work hard and help a struggling defense get better.

I guess it all depends on how forgiving the \"individual\" fan is.

Sully made a promise to the coaches and the fans. Fine! I\'m willing to take the man at his word and wait to see what happens.

There\'s too much upside (as far as I\'m concerned) and too much downside (salary-cap) to cut Sully.

It\'s a no-brainer for me as far as what\'s in the best interest of the team.

I suppose I\'m just a little more forgiving than some?!

Riddle me this:?
 

Ok, but, back to the original point. If you\'re more forgiving than some, why can you forgive Sully and not McPherson?

One has only made hollow promises. The other has a two year track record of correcting his off-field issues.

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by ScottyRo]

Riddle me this:?
 

This statement, plus a two year track record put him several notches above Sullivan.

Now if Sullivan busts his rear, gets in shape and plays lights out for a year, I\'d be behind him 100%. But he\'s done nothing to indicate he will, except talk.

To coin an annoying phrase...
Sullivan is talking the talk,
McPherson is walking the walk.

I see a huge difference, as of right now.

Riddle me this:?
 

... threads like this one remind me of taking my kid to the ice cream parlor... they had a gumball machine filled with bouncy balls... my kid got 3-4 every time, and when we got back home, he\'d take them out of his pocket, and throw them all at the same time against the wall...

... to my count, the 2005 season will actually be Sully\'s 3rd chance to prove he\'s worth something...

... whereas Adrian just got his chance...

Riddle me this:?
 

Mc Pherson hasn\'t cost anything yet..he\'s not even signed...

If and I stress IF he comes out and falls flat...no loss..not really..I mean..I don\'t expect him to do anything stupid...I am worried about his play...He said he was sorry...and wants to be better..WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?...We have all fallen short of grace in our lives...luckily for us..we didn\'t have to answer to a national media about it...

Let him answer for HIS OWN PAST ...I doubt playing good football will make him a better person...

Jon Sullivan has had every chance in the world to be a superstar...He has the money ALLREADY FOR A JOB HE NEVER DID...

Clearly..there is NO COMPARISON BETWEEN THESE TWO...

Your right about one thing Billy..it\'s not only Sully\'s fault..but..It\'s not only Loomis\' fault either...

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by shadowdrinker]

Riddle me this:?
 

My problem with Sullen isn\'t that he didn\'t live up to expectations. His lax and non-commital attitude rubs against a team looking for a fresh start. He also created bad feelings from others who thought they could do better, but weren\'t allow to play for a long time.

That leads to players not believing in the system. Why should they prepare for games, when the 1# pick is gonna start all season, no matter what? Sullen was bumming out the team.

He let the team down, in a position that we desperately needed production. Worse, it seemed he wasn\'t interested in improving for two long years.

At least Ricky would pout when he felt that he wasn\'t appreciated, or that some didn\'t understand that his production was lacking due to various nagging injuries. Sometimes, it was just due to predictable play calling.

What those two have in common, is that they\'re both introverts. They would rather sulk around alone, instead of being part of a team. Sometimes, getting to know your fellow warriors goes a long way towards then understanding what youre going through.

Riddle me this:?
 

excatly-not to mention-sully has repeated this behavior now for what-two years? even if it\'s one--macpherson is the new kid in town..need I say more.

Riddle me this:?
 

Again, I agree 100% with Scotty. Sullivan DESERVES to be cut, but he should NOT be cut b/c of the affect on the team financially.

If Sullivan was getting paid what McPherson will this year, then I see no reason in him being given another shot. However he\'s not. He\'s getting paid a lot more. If he could be cut, given his current salary, with zero affect on the team, I would cut him in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, neither scenario is reality.

Do you think McPherson deserves a 10 million dollar signing bonus? Afterall, he does deserve the kind of shake Sullivan is getting right?

Riddle me this:?
 

1. don\'t blame anyone for actions that are not there own-haz shouldn\'t have draft him that high...
2. do blame for actions that are their own...sully being lazy-he should be stiffly penalized...williams-he should be punished for his actions.


otherwise the logic of the arguement that is being made makes little sense.

Riddle me this:?
 

Okay, guys, I have a better understanding of how everyone feels about Sullivan.


I just used the McPhearson/Sullivan comparison as a basis of disucssion.

I don\'t have anything against McPhearson being given another chance to get his football career on track. Or his life as far as that\'s concerned.

I\'ve heard many fans say Sully should\'t be given another chance. But I can\'t see ANY reason why Sully shouldn\'t be given another chance.

Sure, Sullivan is making a lot of money, but just because the guy is making a lot of money doesn\'t mean he doesn\'t deserve ONE more chance.

Hey, he\'s making a lot of money and he made a mistake. Why don\'t we burn him at the stake? That seems to be the attitude of many.

It\'s hurting the team very badly to have ALL that money invested in Jonathan Sullivan and the guy hasn\'t even been commited. I understand that.

However, I don\'t hate Sullivan. I\'m not ready to throw him to the wolves.

I\'m ready to wipe the slate clean and give him one FINAL chance. If he goes on to play up to his 1st round potential, I\'ll be satisfied.

If he goes on to be a bust ... well ... Haslett and co. made a huge mistake. They won\'t be the first team it happened to. Hindsight is 20/20. At the time we desperately needed a stud DT. They rolled the dice by giving up 2 first round draft picks to get the guy they wanted. We\'ll see ....





[Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Riddle me this:?
 

IMO, whoever\'s decision that was should have been fired and still should be when/if Sully is cut. That was just a poor, poor decision our defense has been paying for the last two years. But like WhoDat said earlier. Sullivan IS getting another chance, just like this staff and front office. Not much we can do about it.

Riddle me this:?
 

If we fired everyone who made mistakes in drafting decions we would never havea front office or a coach. Bottom line is whether these guys have drafted consistently good or bad over the course of a few years -- if the answer is mediocre or poor than they should be gone. As for Sully -- no reason not to give him another chance -- I think that one must try considering the price we paid for him. Of course no reason to believe another chance will be fruitful.

But I think this thread has gotten off-track -- I remember answering why I was willing to cut McPherson slack but was upset at Sully. I answered that one a long way back -- Mcpherson is costing us a 5th rounder salary and probably no signing bonus -- he is coming in with something to prove namely he is a NFL caliber QB -- he demonstrated he has talent with a year in the arena league earning rookie of the year honors -- and as for asking for another chance he has walked the talk of cleaning up his act. Just this alone makes me give him more slack and I haven\'t even gotten to the negative things about Sully.

Riddle me this:?
 

This mistake was on top of taking a playoff team and making them a laughingstock. SO yes, the person responsible for THAT decision should be fired at this point. Not when they made the pick, now. I was angry when they made the pick, but noone knew Sully would be this bad. SO yes I feel at this point it is warranted to fire the person who made that pick. Don\'t see how that translates into firing everyone who made draft mistakes. I certainly would not be advocating firing Bill Belichek or Scott Pioli if they traded two first rounders to draft a bust, but we aren\'t looking at that kind of front office or coaching here.

Riddle me this:?
 

I am not happy either -- I am just not sure who to fire -- Here is my thinking -- we brought in Deuce (a move I questioned at the time) but in the end it got some of our draft picks back and saved us from being burned like Miami was when Ricky walked out (think of the taunting the press would have given us). WHo let Roaf walk away -- Glover -- whose fault was that. I guess my point is that sometimes I am not sure if its the player personell moves or the coaching or the owner or what. I do happen to agree that someone should have been held accountable for the last 3 years

Riddle me this:?
 

See, this is where we differ. If he\'d just become an ok starter, I\'d be happy with him. Sure, I\'d want more, but I could live with him giving all he had and starting.

Riddle me this:?
 

One was worth half of Ricky Williams (who we game an entire team for originally) and half our top pick, one is a fifth rounder.

We\'ll embrace McPherson because he might be a cheap way to help the team. Who cares what he did before, if he\'s changed we benefit and if not we only lose a second day pick.

With Sully, that fat A@@ cost the team two players in the first round. A lot is invested in him, so if he continues to tank then a year in the draft and half od Ricky was wasted.

He cares about illegealities, I care about how much is invested...

Riddle me this:?
 

Scotty ...

Everything I\'ve been discussing had only to do with whether or not Sullivan should get ONE more chance.

I DID make the statement that I\'d be satisfied if Sully played up to his \"first-round\" potential.

And I stand by that statement.

Just becuase I\'m willing to give Sully a chance, I will NOT be satisfied unless he shows he can play up to his first round selection.

The only way I\'d be satisfied if Sullivan played \"decent\" is if he took a pay cut. He\'s making too much money just to be a \"decent\" player. IMHO.

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Riddle me this:?
 

[quote:f4d44772b1] How can you embrace one and not the other?[quote:f4d44772b1]

This is what most of the replies been referring to. If you are truly asking the question should Sully be given one more chance this year -- I would answer yes -- we gave up too much for him not to make sure

Riddle me this:?
 

I\'m with you 4saints. That\'s why I didn\'t single anyone out, cause at that point, we don\'t truly know who was making those decisions. I know I posted an article a couple of times from not long after Mueller was fired where Haslett demanded more control over personnel decisions, but can\'t say if it truly happened. Also posted an article recently by ESPN for all 32 teams; front offices and who was in control, and currently it says it is Loomis. I was just saying, the person that made the call on drafting Sully, well, trading up to draft him, is prob the same person who thought the Orlando Ruff\'s and such would help our team, and that person should be fired. I also have no way of knowing who that person is.

Riddle me this:?
 

(1) People should be fired for the following kinds of things: negligence, intentional misconduct, and/or terrible performance.

One mistake does not constitute any of those things. No one should lose their job over Sullivan alone. If there is a track record of such mistakes, then yes; a single incident (no matter how bad) should not.

I realize people are fired for much less than those things, but I\'d have to hear about the particulars before I made a judgement on those cases.

(2) As for the answer to this question: is it possible to be consistent and give A-Mac a choice but not Sully? Of course it is possible. A-Mac has shown that he has character flaws and so has Sully. However, here are a slew of relevant differences: Sully has shown he is lazy - A-Mac that he is a gambler. Those sound different. Sully has failed to become a starter and is getting paid starter money. A-Mac doesn\'t even have a contract. Those sound different. Sully has had his chance to make the team, become a starter, show us anything. A-Mac hasn\'t. That sounds different.

I guess, I think the question is misguided - the only thing that seems similar is the POSSIBLE result - getting a second chance. Otherwise, I don\'t see much grounds for thinking the cases are even remotely similar.

Thus, no inconsistency at all.

(3) Finally, on this idea that Sully is a thief. That is ridiculous. What did he steal? A starting postion, no. A contract, no - that was agreed on by both parties. Money, no - he has a contract. A spot on the roster, no - we could cut him at any time we like. What was stolen? If the answer is nothing, then he is not a thief.

(4) Ok. I lied, one more thing. I understand that some people want to give Sully a chance - I can see that. We would love for him to come through on the expectations we had of him. Problem is, at some point we got to cut our losses. I understand that some people don\'t want to give him another chance - I can see that.

Here\'s an idea that has had a lot of use in my life: sunk costs. When companies evaluate what they should do next, they don\'t look at what they did before - they look at future benefits and future costs. Thus, if they can make more money making gromets, rather than widgets - they should make gromets EVEN IF THEY JUST BOUGHT FANCY NEW WIDGET MAKING MACHINES.

Thus, what we paid Sully, where he was drafted, how much we hated that pick, etc. IS A SUNK COST AND THUS IRRELEVANT.

What is relevant are these things: what he will get paid, the cap hit we will take if we cut him, our expectations about how well he will play next year. Nothing about what has happened should be considered in this decision - that is a sunk cost. Good business practice, good decision making strategy, I suggest we think about it.

Riddle me this:?
 

Where I work Kool, if I came in, didn\'t do my job but still got paid and took that pay home, I would be called a thief. Sullivan is a thief. If he is getting paid to do a job that he is not doing, he is stealing the pay. If I pay a contractor to redo my roof, and he walks away with the money and never does it, would you not say he stole that money from me? Sullivan has been paid to be a starting DT on this team, and he has been paid to be at his playing weight, both of which he has failed at miserably. TO my knowledge, he has not given that money back, thus making him a thief.

Exactly why I said That would constitute more than one mistake no?

Riddle me this:?
 

(1) Whodi, you\'ll agree that being a thief and calling someone a thief are different things, right?

In the case of your contractor, he is a thief, since he took the money and never did anything.

Sullivan isn\'t under contract to be a starter - I\'m certain that is not in his contract. He is under contract to be a Saint. He is a Saint, until he fails to make the roster - which he hasn\'t (since we\'d have to cut him for him to not be on our roster).

I understand your sentiment, but the cases are not parallel.

(2) That might constitute more than one mistake if we knew it was the same person.

Furthermore, Ruff is/was a starter for this team, so I don\'t see as how that is a mistake that is all that bad. He did help the team, just not as much as we would have liked. He was a starter on another NFL team; a player simply failing to meet poorly set (or unrealistic) expectations of them is not a fault of the player.

(3) I\'m not opposed to firing this guy IF it is one guy, he personally did the scouting (or trusted incompetent scouts), and has made more than a few, reasonably foreseable, bad decisions. I just don\'t see any reason to believe we know those things. So, I suppose, I might be inclined to agree with you in principle - just the standards for calling for someone\'s head haven\'t been clearly met, IMO.

Riddle me this:?
 

Kool, I am not certain you are reading my posts. This is what I said: Which if I am not mistaken ispretty much what you said here: Is this not similar? And if it is, what is the cause for the argument?

And we both know Kool, Sully is being paid a starters salary. If he isn;t being paid to start, can you name me some other guys who don\'t start that make a smuch as Sully? Howard Green didn\'t. Brian Young doesn\'t and he starts. Whitehead doesn\'t Bryant doesn\'t. So seeing as how Sully is being pais a starters salary, he is being paid to start. He is also like Is aid being paid to be at his playing weight, as there is a weight clause in his contract. he has done neither. He is being paid for a jobhe is not performing, thus he is a thief, just as the contractor is.

Riddle me this:?
 

(1) Whodi, I thought we were agreeing on that. I was merely stating the specifics of my agreement. Trust me, I was reading what you said - apologies if it seemed otherwise.

(2) Sully is fufilling his contract. He is paid to be on the team, and he is. He is actually getting paid a good deal less than a lot of starting DTs (as he is still on his rookie contract). I don\'t see what how much he is getting paid has to do with him being a thief (he is contracted for that amount - which was agreed on by both parties).

I think we just have different notions of theivery. I think it means stealing. You think it means not doing something even though you weren\'t contracted to do it - Sully\'s contract states his pay, his signing bonus, etc. to be on the team. It doesn\'t say that he has to start - of course, that could have been written in, but it wasn\'t.

I hate that Sully hasn\'t lived up to his standards, but he is doing what his contract called for, or he wouldn\'t be getting paid. Your fictional contractor merely didn\'t do what his contract said he was to do - that is the difference.

Let\'s say that I get contracted to roof your house. I\'m paid $1 up front and a $1 a day. Say I work three days, and I get paid $4. At the end of the third day, I fall off the roof and break my leg and can\'t finish. Did I steal $4 from you because I didn\'t finish roofing the house? After all, you paid me to roof the house (which I suppose you assumed I would complete).

Let\'s say you pay me to be a roofer. Still $1 a day. I am roofing your house impossibily slowly. Am I a thief or just a bad roofer?

I guess, I don\'t see that it is worth the term thief. Sure, we\'re overpaying him badly, cutting him slack he shouldn\'t get, and treating him like an adult, which he isn\'t, but he\'s not a thief by any conventional definition.

Riddle me this:?
 

If Sullivan is a \"thief\", then EVERY player that shows up out of shape is a \"thief\".

And that includes Deuce McAllister. And that includes ANY player that has ever played in the NFL who has showed up out of shape and given less than 100%.

They are paid to show up in shape and give 100%. Right?

And if they don\'t do that then they are \"thiefs\".

At least if some of you are going to call Sullivan a \"thief\", then you can be consisetent!!

How many more thiefs are on the Saints? In the NFL?

Riddle me this:?
 

Did anyone suggest that he get cut outright? Who said that? [/quote:93dfca7f90]

ok i\'ll say it......later fatboy, u will never change :hungry:

Riddle me this:?
 

Kool. did Sully get injured? Was he hurt in some way not reported? How does that compare to falling off a roof and not finishing a contracting job? How\'s this, Sully gets paid to play on Sundays correct? Cause he was fat and lazy last year he couldn\'t correct? Sully is paid to HELP the team correct? OR do you feel he is simply paid to stand on the sideline in his uniform? If you feel that\'s what players are paid for, I see where we differ. When an NFL player is paid a salary, in my mind they are paid to perform on Sundays when called upon. If through their own faults they are unable to do this, they are no longer doing what they are being paid for. Thus stealing. I am sorry, but when the amount of money being paid goes up into the millions of dollars, and I am getting NOTHING for those millions, I call it stealing. I am not under the impression that NFL players are paid just to wear a uniform. Why would someone play millions for that? NFL players are paid to perform, and Sully not only has not, he has not come close. He is a thief in my mind. If you don;t feel that way, well that\'s your opinion. But to say a number 6 draft pick who is being paid like a number 6 draft pick is paid simply to be in uniform is a bit ridiculous to me.

Show me how many games Duece was 100% healthy but too fat and out of shape to play and I will call him a thief. Then show me Deuce or any other player in the NFL in the media buffet line before a game cause they were too useless to be able to play, and I will call them a thief. Good luck finding players that fit that description, but you have the whole NFL to work with. Should be fun to see what you come up with.

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by saintswhodi]