Riddle me this:?

FireVenturi · 04-27-2005, 06:43 PM

That\'s easy. Sully did what he did while under contract with the Saints, McPhereson didn\'t. I give a **** what he did in college.

:shrug:

:yourock:

FireVenturi · 04-27-2005, 06:44 PM

BTW......i feel an agenda coming out of this thread!

BlackandBlue · 04-27-2005, 06:52 PM

So you want to know why Sullivan is blamed for not playing up to the potential of two first round picks?
That\'s like asking why I get my ass chewed by my customer when it\'s my vendor that is having difficulty delivering the product when they said they would. Part of the business.
You\'ll see no sympathy from me for a guy that makes more in a year than I will in 5.

GumboBC · 04-27-2005, 06:59 PM

So you want to know why Sullivan is blamed for not playing up to the potential of two first round picks?
That\'s like asking why I get my ass chewed by my customer when it\'s my vendor that is having difficulty delivering the product when they said they would. Part of the business.
You\'ll see no sympathy from me for a guy that makes more in a year than I will in 5.

I\'m not looking for sympathy for Jonathan Sullivan. What I\'m looking for is folks to stop blaming Sullivan for Haslett and Loomis giving up 2 picks for him.

Is that asking for sympathy? Hardly. I\'m saying if you want to bring up how much we gave up for Sully (as many have) then you should blame Haslett and Loomis.

Seems more reasonable to me.

I never knew it was \"part of the business\" to place blame where it doesn\'t belong. What company do you work for.

[Edited on 27/4/2005 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 27/4/2005 by GumboBC]

BlackandBlue · 04-27-2005, 07:53 PM

It\'s part of sales, it\'s not a specific company. And it\'s the only way you\'ll see change. If I\'m promised something by my vendor, and they don\'t deliver, I don\'t care who I\'m chewing, but I will chew someone\'s ass over it. They are paid representatives of their respective companies, so they can be paid to listen to me *****. And it happens on our customer side. I\'ve been chewed before by people that I\'ve never dealt with before.

GumboBC · 04-27-2005, 07:59 PM

It\'s part of sales, it\'s not a specific company. And it\'s the only way you\'ll see change. If I\'m promised something by my vendor, and they don\'t deliver, I don\'t care who I\'m chewing, but I will chew someone\'s ass over it. They are paid representatives of their respective companies, so they can be paid to listen to me *****. And it happens on our customer side. I\'ve been chewed before by people that I\'ve never dealt with before.

Yeah, I know you are in sales. And so am I. Well, sorta. I was in sales for many years for copiers, faxes, printers, etc.

And I was also a service tech for years on the same kind of equipment. Now, I just kind of oversee stuff.

Being in sales is a tough job. Or it can be. It\'s also very rewarding finacially. If you\'re good that is. And you get to meet a lot of interesting folks.

You\'re right, sales-people take a lot of crap sometimes. Much of it unfair. And the \"vendors\" can be a pain in the ass. If I had a dollar for everytime something was on \"back-order\" I\'d be a rich man.

Getting back to Sully. I think you see what I\'m saying. I\'m not excusing Sully for being lazy and not producing. I just don\'t blame him because we gave up too much to select him.

And I\'m willing to give him this ONE LAST CHANCE. It\'s in the best interest of the team. I think ...

WhoDat · 04-27-2005, 08:45 PM

How can you embrace one and not the other?

Wasn\'t this the first question? Isn\'t this the root of what is \"being decided\" or discussed in this thread?

Fault - in terms of what the New Orleans Saints gave up to get Sullivan is NOT irrelevant, but I agree that it is NOT Sully\'s fault AND that is not the definitive issue.

There are a couple of relevant issues:

1. What McPherson did in no way affected the New Orleans Saints, so we haven\'t been burned by him - whereas we have been burned by Sullivan - which is WHY we \"can embrace one and not the other.\"

2. McPherson\'s acts MAY be construed as lapses in judgment - individual events. Sullivan\'s problem is better categorized as a CONDITION - fat and lazy. That\'s another reason we \"can embrace one and not the other.\"

3. Danno is correct (I think it was Danno). McPherson has PROVEN that he can suceed ON THE FIELD and in life since being in trouble. He\'s done it by not getting in trouble and playing great ball in the AFL. Sullivan, on the other hand, has proven every day for two years that - AT BEST - if he is even trying to earn his keep, he has failed at performing. Moreover, there is reason to doubt that Sullivan is even trying - which is why we \"can embrace one and not the other.\"

4. When looking at the talent of one as compared to the other, it seems that McPherson truly posses the talent to be a star in the NFL, whereas Sullivan\'s performance suggests otherwise. There was little to suggest that Sullivan could be all that great when we wasted the two first rounders on him. There is less now that we\'ve seen him play. McPherson still looks to be a freak talent-wise. Again, a reason why one is appealing and the other is not.

Need I go further????

GumboBC · 04-27-2005, 08:55 PM

3. Danno is correct (I think it was Danno). McPherson has PROVEN that he can suceed ON THE FIELD and in life since being in trouble. He\'s done it by not getting in trouble and playing great ball in the AFL. Sullivan, on the other hand, has proven every day for two years that - AT BEST - if he is even trying to earn his keep, he has failed at performing. Moreover, there is reason to doubt that Sullivan is even trying - which is why we \"can embrace one and not the other.\"

Whoa!! WhoDat calling an areana-league QB proven? Really?

And what did McPhearson do in college? Not much!!

If you\'re satisfied that McPhearson has proven himself to be NFL worthy, then you should be estatic about all of our draft picks.

I don\'t disagree with the notion that fans shouldn\'t be MORE with Sullivan.

But I see no reason to have such a forgiving attitude with McPhearson and not be willing to give Sullivan another chance.

And I see no reason for the folks who claim \"character\" is important to be so hyped-up on McPhearson.

Some of you act as if Sullivan ate your first-born child.

In the end ... I agree ... fans should be more upset with Sully. He was paid a lot of money to come in and give 100% And that\'s the ONLY reason anyone should be upset.

No one has a right to be upset with Sully for any other reason. Unless you can tell me one that I haven\'t heard ..

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]

saintswhodi · 04-27-2005, 08:58 PM

No one has a right to be upset with Sully for any other reason. Unless you can tell me one that I haven\'t heard ..

Whoa. I have a \"right\" to be upset at anyone for whatever reason I choose. If I wanna be mad at Sullivan cause I got fired from my job, that\'s up to me. It may not be reasonable to be mad at Sully for this, but I have a right to be upset with anyone I want for any reason I want, as does everyone else. Right and reason shouldn\'t be confused here.

GumboBC · 04-27-2005, 09:04 PM

No one has a right to be upset with Sully for any other reason. Unless you can tell me one that I haven\'t heard ..

Whoa. I have a \"right\" to be upset at anyone for whatever reason I choose. If I wanna be mad at Sullivan cause I got fired from my job, that\'s up to me. It may not be reasonable to be mad at Sully for this, but I have a right to be upset with anyone I want for any reason I want, as does everyone else. Right and reason shouldn\'t be confused here.

\"Right\" - \"Reason\" - \"Whatever\" --

I don\'t blame you for being upset with Sullivan. But if you\'re mad for the wrong reasons then maybe it\'s clouding your judgement a little bit? Not saying it is. Not saying it isn\'t.

I\'m just trying to be fair, here. Ultimately, what happens to Jonathan Sullivan has no effect on my life. But given everything I know, I think he deservers ONE more chance.

He (Sullivan) is on his last leg in New Orleans. He knows it. Haslett knows it. The fans know it.

Personally, I am pulling for the guy. And I hope McPhearson is the next John Elway. If so, then Brooks needs to find a new team. And I ain\'t kidding. :exclam:

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]

04-27-2005, 06:43 PM	#31
FireVenturi Cold as Ice! Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Da Big Easy Posts: 2,978	Riddle me this:? That\'s easy. Sully did what he did while under contract with the Saints, McPhereson didn\'t. I give a **** what he did in college. :shrug: :yourock:

04-27-2005, 06:44 PM	#32
FireVenturi Cold as Ice! Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Da Big Easy Posts: 2,978	Riddle me this:? BTW......i feel an agenda coming out of this thread!

04-27-2005, 06:52 PM	#33
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Riddle me this:? So you want to know why Sullivan is blamed for not playing up to the potential of two first round picks? That\'s like asking why I get my ass chewed by my customer when it\'s my vendor that is having difficulty delivering the product when they said they would. Part of the business. You\'ll see no sympathy from me for a guy that makes more in a year than I will in 5.

04-27-2005, 06:59 PM	#34
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Riddle me this:? So you want to know why Sullivan is blamed for not playing up to the potential of two first round picks? That\'s like asking why I get my ass chewed by my customer when it\'s my vendor that is having difficulty delivering the product when they said they would. Part of the business. You\'ll see no sympathy from me for a guy that makes more in a year than I will in 5. I\'m not looking for sympathy for Jonathan Sullivan. What I\'m looking for is folks to stop blaming Sullivan for Haslett and Loomis giving up 2 picks for him. Is that asking for sympathy? Hardly. I\'m saying if you want to bring up how much we gave up for Sully (as many have) then you should blame Haslett and Loomis. Seems more reasonable to me. I never knew it was \"part of the business\" to place blame where it doesn\'t belong. What company do you work for. [Edited on 27/4/2005 by GumboBC] [Edited on 27/4/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-27-2005, 07:53 PM	#35
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Riddle me this:? It\'s part of sales, it\'s not a specific company. And it\'s the only way you\'ll see change. If I\'m promised something by my vendor, and they don\'t deliver, I don\'t care who I\'m chewing, but I will chew someone\'s ass over it. They are paid representatives of their respective companies, so they can be paid to listen to me *****. And it happens on our customer side. I\'ve been chewed before by people that I\'ve never dealt with before.

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, 07:59 PM	#36
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Riddle me this:? It\'s part of sales, it\'s not a specific company. And it\'s the only way you\'ll see change. If I\'m promised something by my vendor, and they don\'t deliver, I don\'t care who I\'m chewing, but I will chew someone\'s ass over it. They are paid representatives of their respective companies, so they can be paid to listen to me *****. And it happens on our customer side. I\'ve been chewed before by people that I\'ve never dealt with before. Yeah, I know you are in sales. And so am I. Well, sorta. I was in sales for many years for copiers, faxes, printers, etc. And I was also a service tech for years on the same kind of equipment. Now, I just kind of oversee stuff. Being in sales is a tough job. Or it can be. It\'s also very rewarding finacially. If you\'re good that is. And you get to meet a lot of interesting folks. You\'re right, sales-people take a lot of crap sometimes. Much of it unfair. And the \"vendors\" can be a pain in the ass. If I had a dollar for everytime something was on \"back-order\" I\'d be a rich man. Getting back to Sully. I think you see what I\'m saying. I\'m not excusing Sully for being lazy and not producing. I just don\'t blame him because we gave up too much to select him. And I\'m willing to give him this ONE LAST CHANCE. It\'s in the best interest of the team. I think ...
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-27-2005, 08:45 PM	#37
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Riddle me this:? How can you embrace one and not the other? Wasn\'t this the first question? Isn\'t this the root of what is \"being decided\" or discussed in this thread? Fault - in terms of what the New Orleans Saints gave up to get Sullivan is NOT irrelevant, but I agree that it is NOT Sully\'s fault AND that is not the definitive issue. There are a couple of relevant issues: 1. What McPherson did in no way affected the New Orleans Saints, so we haven\'t been burned by him - whereas we have been burned by Sullivan - which is WHY we \"can embrace one and not the other.\" 2. McPherson\'s acts MAY be construed as lapses in judgment - individual events. Sullivan\'s problem is better categorized as a CONDITION - fat and lazy. That\'s another reason we \"can embrace one and not the other.\" 3. Danno is correct (I think it was Danno). McPherson has PROVEN that he can suceed ON THE FIELD and in life since being in trouble. He\'s done it by not getting in trouble and playing great ball in the AFL. Sullivan, on the other hand, has proven every day for two years that - AT BEST - if he is even trying to earn his keep, he has failed at performing. Moreover, there is reason to doubt that Sullivan is even trying - which is why we \"can embrace one and not the other.\" 4. When looking at the talent of one as compared to the other, it seems that McPherson truly posses the talent to be a star in the NFL, whereas Sullivan\'s performance suggests otherwise. There was little to suggest that Sullivan could be all that great when we wasted the two first rounders on him. There is less now that we\'ve seen him play. McPherson still looks to be a freak talent-wise. Again, a reason why one is appealing and the other is not. Need I go further????
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

04-27-2005, 08:55 PM	#38
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Riddle me this:? 3. Danno is correct (I think it was Danno). McPherson has PROVEN that he can suceed ON THE FIELD and in life since being in trouble. He\'s done it by not getting in trouble and playing great ball in the AFL. Sullivan, on the other hand, has proven every day for two years that - AT BEST - if he is even trying to earn his keep, he has failed at performing. Moreover, there is reason to doubt that Sullivan is even trying - which is why we \"can embrace one and not the other.\" Whoa!! WhoDat calling an areana-league QB proven? Really? And what did McPhearson do in college? Not much!! If you\'re satisfied that McPhearson has proven himself to be NFL worthy, then you should be estatic about all of our draft picks. I don\'t disagree with the notion that fans shouldn\'t be MORE with Sullivan. But I see no reason to have such a forgiving attitude with McPhearson and not be willing to give Sullivan another chance. And I see no reason for the folks who claim \"character\" is important to be so hyped-up on McPhearson. Some of you act as if Sullivan ate your first-born child. In the end ... I agree ... fans should be more upset with Sully. He was paid a lot of money to come in and give 100% And that\'s the ONLY reason anyone should be upset. No one has a right to be upset with Sully for any other reason. Unless you can tell me one that I haven\'t heard .. [Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-27-2005, 08:58 PM	#39
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Riddle me this:? No one has a right to be upset with Sully for any other reason. Unless you can tell me one that I haven\'t heard .. Whoa. I have a \"right\" to be upset at anyone for whatever reason I choose. If I wanna be mad at Sullivan cause I got fired from my job, that\'s up to me. It may not be reasonable to be mad at Sully for this, but I have a right to be upset with anyone I want for any reason I want, as does everyone else. Right and reason shouldn\'t be confused here.

04-27-2005, 09:04 PM	#40
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Riddle me this:? No one has a right to be upset with Sully for any other reason. Unless you can tell me one that I haven\'t heard .. Whoa. I have a \"right\" to be upset at anyone for whatever reason I choose. If I wanna be mad at Sullivan cause I got fired from my job, that\'s up to me. It may not be reasonable to be mad at Sully for this, but I have a right to be upset with anyone I want for any reason I want, as does everyone else. Right and reason shouldn\'t be confused here. \"Right\" - \"Reason\" - \"Whatever\" -- I don\'t blame you for being upset with Sullivan. But if you\'re mad for the wrong reasons then maybe it\'s clouding your judgement a little bit? Not saying it is. Not saying it isn\'t. I\'m just trying to be fair, here. Ultimately, what happens to Jonathan Sullivan has no effect on my life. But given everything I know, I think he deservers ONE more chance. He (Sullivan) is on his last leg in New Orleans. He knows it. Haslett knows it. The fans know it. Personally, I am pulling for the guy. And I hope McPhearson is the next John Elway. If so, then Brooks needs to find a new team. And I ain\'t kidding. :exclam: [Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616