Riddle me this:?

Danno · 04-27-2005, 04:19 PM

Not a lot to go on for either one.

Well there\'s two years of back-up behind McPherson\'s claim, and there isn\'t one single day of back-up to support Sullivan\'s.

They may both be full of crap, but I\'ll put my money on the guy who\'s backed it up for two years over the guy that has only told us he\'s changed, for about the 3rd time, and has zero evidence to support it.

[Edited on 27/4/2005 by Danno]

saintswhodi · 04-27-2005, 04:20 PM

And McPhearson\'s \"sin\" was a lot worse than Sully.

Not in my mind. Sully is stealing checks from the team I love while McPherson stole a check from some rim shop I never heard of when he was like 18 or 19 years old. Like BNB said, I could give a **** what McPherson did at Florida state, Sully is stealing from us right here and now.

GumboBC · 04-27-2005, 04:22 PM

Not a lot to go on for either one.

Well there\'s two years of back-up behind McPherson\'s claim, and there isn\'t one single day of back-up to support Sullivan\'s.

They may both be full of crap, but I\'ll put my money on the guy who\'s backed it up for two years over the guy that has only told us he\'s changed, for about the 3rd time, and has zero evidence of it.

Not disputing that McPhearson has been \"cleaner\" than Sullivan for a longer period of time.

But if I\'m picking a guy for my football team, I\'d probably be more concerned with the guy who commited the bigger crime.

In fact, Sully commited no crime.

How many times has McPhearson vowed to clean his act up?

Was it after he stole the check? Or after he got arrested for gambling?

JOESAM2002 · 04-27-2005, 04:32 PM

Sounds like someone needs to read my sinner to Saint post.

GumboBC · 04-27-2005, 04:42 PM

Sounds like someone needs to read my sinner to Saint post.

You can be sure, JoeSam, I read it.

But we\'ve got to give these passionate Saints\' fans something to chew on.

They\'re a hungry group.

Chow down, boys. And girls ....

ScottyRo · 04-27-2005, 04:55 PM

Loomis and Haslett gave up 2-first round picks for Sully.

Jonathan had nothing to do with that.

He made himself available for the draft. I\'m sure they talked to hiim before they made the pick. He was probably giving them the full line of how hard he was going to work.

Thing is his unwillingness to dedicate himself is the problem no matter what picks we gave up for him. However, the fact that we\'re paying him so much and we gave up so much does mean that he should be trying harder than he is.

That is all.

GumboBC · 04-27-2005, 05:02 PM

He made himself available for the draft. I\'m sure they talked to hiim before they made the pick. He was probably giving them the full line of how hard he was going to work.

Interesting. I don\'t agree with it. But it\'s interesting.

I\'ll ask this again... Do you blame Rickey Williams for making himself \"avaliable\" for the draft and the Saints giving up a WHOLE draft for him?

I never heard you or ANYone blame Ricky Wiliams for that. I\'ve heard Mike (Duh Coach) Ditka blamed, though.

So, we blame Ditka for giving up a whole draft for Rickey Williams but we blame Jonathan Sullivan for what Loomis and Haslett did?

Doesn\'t make a lot of sense to me?!

ScottyRo · 04-27-2005, 05:05 PM

You seriously want to compare RW\'s NFL record to Sully\'s?

RW may have been a freak and shafted the Dolphins, but at least for the time he was in the league he showed up to play.

:casstet:

GumboBC · 04-27-2005, 05:09 PM

You seriously want to compare RW\'s NFL record to Sully\'s?

RW may have been a freak and shafted the Dolphins, but at least for the time he was in the league he showed up to play.

:casstet:

Who\'s talking about prodution?

No one has been talking about \"prodution\" unitl now ... when you brought it up.

Scotty .. before Sullian and Ricky Williams were drafted ... there was NO produciton.

We were talking about what the Saints gave up to get Ricky Williams and Sullivan in the draft. There was NO production to go on.

I simply stated that Sullivan had nothing to do with 2 first round picks being given up for him.

Just like Ricky Williams has nothing to do with Ditka giving up a whole draft for him.

Why be mad at Sullivan because Haslett and Loomis gave up too much? Just doesn\'t make sense. Be mad at Haslett and Loomis.

[Edited on 27/4/2005 by GumboBC]

ScottyRo · 04-27-2005, 05:16 PM

It\'s ALL about production. Nobody would be mad if Sully was paying dividends for us.

I wasn\'t in favor of trading up for anybody and didn\'t really know who Sully was, but I wasn\'t ahppy about it then. At least when we got RW there was general consensus that we got a good player. Not true with Sully.

You have lost focus on the thread not me. My statement was I\'m more likely at this point to give McPherson a chance rather than Sully because he has had his chance to produce and hasn\'t been worth what we gave and has been getting paid all along.

So, what matters other than production?

04-27-2005, 04:19 PM	#11
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,713	Riddle me this:? Not a lot to go on for either one. Well there\'s two years of back-up behind McPherson\'s claim, and there isn\'t one single day of back-up to support Sullivan\'s. They may both be full of crap, but I\'ll put my money on the guy who\'s backed it up for two years over the guy that has only told us he\'s changed, for about the 3rd time, and has zero evidence to support it. [Edited on 27/4/2005 by Danno]

04-27-2005, 04:20 PM	#12
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Riddle me this:? And McPhearson\'s \"sin\" was a lot worse than Sully. Not in my mind. Sully is stealing checks from the team I love while McPherson stole a check from some rim shop I never heard of when he was like 18 or 19 years old. Like BNB said, I could give a **** what McPherson did at Florida state, Sully is stealing from us right here and now.

04-27-2005, 04:22 PM	#13
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Riddle me this:? Not a lot to go on for either one. Well there\'s two years of back-up behind McPherson\'s claim, and there isn\'t one single day of back-up to support Sullivan\'s. They may both be full of crap, but I\'ll put my money on the guy who\'s backed it up for two years over the guy that has only told us he\'s changed, for about the 3rd time, and has zero evidence of it. Not disputing that McPhearson has been \"cleaner\" than Sullivan for a longer period of time. But if I\'m picking a guy for my football team, I\'d probably be more concerned with the guy who commited the bigger crime. In fact, Sully commited no crime. How many times has McPhearson vowed to clean his act up? Was it after he stole the check? Or after he got arrested for gambling?
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-27-2005, 04:32 PM	#14
JOESAM2002 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: CRYSTAL BEACH TEXAS Posts: 4,100	Riddle me this:? Sounds like someone needs to read my sinner to Saint post.

04-27-2005, 04:42 PM	#15
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Riddle me this:? Sounds like someone needs to read my sinner to Saint post. You can be sure, JoeSam, I read it. But we\'ve got to give these passionate Saints\' fans something to chew on. They\'re a hungry group. Chow down, boys. And girls ....
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

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

04-27-2005, 04:55 PM	#16
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Riddle me this:? Loomis and Haslett gave up 2-first round picks for Sully. Jonathan had nothing to do with that. He made himself available for the draft. I\'m sure they talked to hiim before they made the pick. He was probably giving them the full line of how hard he was going to work. Thing is his unwillingness to dedicate himself is the problem no matter what picks we gave up for him. However, the fact that we\'re paying him so much and we gave up so much does mean that he should be trying harder than he is. That is all.

04-27-2005, 05:02 PM	#17
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Riddle me this:? He made himself available for the draft. I\'m sure they talked to hiim before they made the pick. He was probably giving them the full line of how hard he was going to work. Interesting. I don\'t agree with it. But it\'s interesting. I\'ll ask this again... Do you blame Rickey Williams for making himself \"avaliable\" for the draft and the Saints giving up a WHOLE draft for him? I never heard you or ANYone blame Ricky Wiliams for that. I\'ve heard Mike (Duh Coach) Ditka blamed, though. So, we blame Ditka for giving up a whole draft for Rickey Williams but we blame Jonathan Sullivan for what Loomis and Haslett did? Doesn\'t make a lot of sense to me?!
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-27-2005, 05:05 PM	#18
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Riddle me this:? You seriously want to compare RW\'s NFL record to Sully\'s? RW may have been a freak and shafted the Dolphins, but at least for the time he was in the league he showed up to play. :casstet:

04-27-2005, 05:09 PM	#19
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Riddle me this:? You seriously want to compare RW\'s NFL record to Sully\'s? RW may have been a freak and shafted the Dolphins, but at least for the time he was in the league he showed up to play. :casstet: Who\'s talking about prodution? No one has been talking about \"prodution\" unitl now ... when you brought it up. Scotty .. before Sullian and Ricky Williams were drafted ... there was NO produciton. We were talking about what the Saints gave up to get Ricky Williams and Sullivan in the draft. There was NO production to go on. I simply stated that Sullivan had nothing to do with 2 first round picks being given up for him. Just like Ricky Williams has nothing to do with Ditka giving up a whole draft for him. Why be mad at Sullivan because Haslett and Loomis gave up too much? Just doesn\'t make sense. Be mad at Haslett and Loomis. [Edited on 27/4/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-27-2005, 05:16 PM	#20
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Riddle me this:? It\'s ALL about production. Nobody would be mad if Sully was paying dividends for us. I wasn\'t in favor of trading up for anybody and didn\'t really know who Sully was, but I wasn\'t ahppy about it then. At least when we got RW there was general consensus that we got a good player. Not true with Sully. You have lost focus on the thread not me. My statement was I\'m more likely at this point to give McPherson a chance rather than Sully because he has had his chance to produce and hasn\'t been worth what we gave and has been getting paid all along. So, what matters other than production?