Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!

saintswhodi · 04-28-2005, 04:32 PM

whodi --

I COULD ask what kind of message is being sent when you draft a convicted thief?

I COULD say that by drafting a convicted thief that it sends a message to the team that they\'ll be given another chance in New Orleans.

But, I\'m not!!

And I could tell you the message being sent by drafting McPherson is hey, we will give you a SECOND chance, just not INFINITE chances. Do you agree Sully has had more than once chance to prove himself even a half decent football player? I say hell yes he has. He had training camp last year, when he reported fat. Didn\'t get underweight before the season. Due to ineffectiveness was made inactive. Then abused the fact that he was inactive to make a bigger joke of the team. I would say what is being asked to keep him is more than a SECOND chance. It\'s closer to infinite. Then he says he has a changed attitude, and still shows up overweight to the conditioning program. I don\'t care if it was 20 pounds as opposed to 50, overweight is overweight. What was he doing the whole time he wasn\'t playing but eating.

Kool, you seem to be of the opinion the only message that can be sent by cutting Sully is don\'t be lazy, and thus would require an overwhelming number of lazy players to be sent. Not at all. You can send the message to players who seem to have gotten complacent that they need to improve too. That positions on this team are no longer an entitlement, but they are earned. It doesn\'t just effect lazy players, it effects the whole atmosphere of a team of underachievers. If I am there, and they cut a guy they gave up two first round draft picks for just two years ago, I am no longer under the impression that I am sitting in the catbird seat and I actually need to get ny but in gear. If not, I could be next. And it needs to be like that IMO.

JKool · 04-28-2005, 04:37 PM

Whodi,

1. What do you think of my Sunk Cost idea?

2.

You can send the message to players who seem to have gotten complacent that they need to improve too.

Not by merely cutting Sullivan - that is ambiguous. It seems obvious that cutting Sullivan says don\'t be lazy. If you want it to say \"don\'t be complacent\", then you need to have some way of conveying that to the players. If that is so, you could convey \"don\'t be complacent\" without cutting anyone. I\'m not saying such a message couldn\'t be sent, but it won\'t be sent by merely cutting Sully.

Danno · 04-28-2005, 04:37 PM

I think the main message it\'ll send is we don\'t play favorites anymore. We don\'t care how much it costs to cut you, if its the best thing to do for this team, WE WILL DO IT!

Take that 11.5 and shove it up your

!!!

saintswhodi · 04-28-2005, 04:40 PM

Here\'s what the article says:

Says it\'s very possible that the Saints are going to make a statement to the rest of the players and cut him after June 1st.

Now to me, that seems like more than just a don\'t be lazy message is gonna be sent by cutting Sully. Sully wasn\'t just lazy, he showed up to camp overweight, stayed overweight, and still was the day one starter. That sends a message that no matter what you do, you will keep your job. They started sending the message that was unacceptable halfway through the season. This will complete the message IMO. No more complacency. I guess we just see what the message would be differently. TO me, cutting Sully is a damn good way to send a message, especially if they are gonna meet with the teambefore that to let them know how things are gonna be.

saintswhodi · 04-28-2005, 04:41 PM

Exactly Danno. That is what I am trying to say.

GumboBC · 04-28-2005, 04:47 PM

JKool, IMHO, is right. You don\'t have to cut players to send any message. Although, I admit, cutting a player could send a message. I just don\'t know if that is required.

Anyway, like I said, I\'m not really worried about cutting someone to send a message.

IF Sully gets cut, I hope it\'s for the right reasons(s)

IF Sully can help us win some ball games, then he shouldn\'t be cut.

If the coaching staff thinks he\'s not going to help, then he should be cut.

The only message that\'s going to be sent by cutting Sullivan is that the New Orleans Saints messed up by drafting Sullivan in the first place. Maybe that should be a message to the front-office and the coaching staff!!

JKool -- I have a comment on this question:

1. What do you think of my Sunk Cost idea?

A \"sunk cost\" is a cost that you have already incurred and that you cannot recover.

I don\'t see how this applies to Sullivan. As we don\'t know if it can be recovered or not.

Whenever you make a decision, it has to be made according to what you know now and upon reasonable expectations of the future. Hoping that bad results from a past decision will eventually \"turn around\" if you stick with that decision is wishful thinking of the worst sort. It always takes courage to admit you made a bad choice and that you need to change your mind, but it is the only thing to do. It takes even more courage to try to convince others that they made bad choices and need to accept the sunk costs, but that\'s something you sometimes have to do.

The only real question is will Sullivan ever pay off. And if you\'ve got the answer to that question ... I\'m all ears?

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]

JKool · 04-28-2005, 04:52 PM

Actually, Gumbo, a sunk cost is any cost that has been incurred in the past. That makes it irrelevant to rational decision making about what to do in the future. It is not about recoverable or not recoverable - it is explicitly NOT about that kind of thing. See my example above (and any finance text).

Danno and Whodi, fine examples. I have changed my view on the message it might send. I just don\'t think cutting a player is necessary to making such a statement - in fact, it might be a very costly way to do so.

ssmitty · 04-28-2005, 04:54 PM

whodi, when given a 2nd chance and someone shows improvement, that\'s good...............when they fall by the wayside and have shown they can improve, i say another chance is acceptable..........would\'nt you want it it you were trying yet still tempted by whatever? change for the better is good but when trying to start anew it does take time in most cases......however, if they never show improvement or even try to show improvement then it becomes up to them to find themself, not you, to continually show them them the door they refuse to go through..........if they don\'t want to help themself, nothing anyone does will make a difference...at which point, the f.o. should say, we\'ll pray for you, goodluck.
smitty

GumboBC · 04-28-2005, 04:54 PM

Actually, Gumbo, a sunk cost is any cost that has been incurred in the past

No, that\'s not what \"sunk\" cost means.

SUNK cost means that you can NEVER recover. Hence: SUNK.

saintswhodi · 04-28-2005, 04:59 PM

in fact, it might be a very costly way to do so.

With this team, I think that\'s the point. What message does it send if it doesn\'t hurt the team at all to cut Sullivan? That sends absolutely no message at all. They are incurring no penalty for cutting a player who has yet to prove any worth to the team. But when cutting a player may actually harm the team in some way, and you do it anyway, you send the meassge that whatever it takes to make this team better, it will be done. That\'s why I like it. It takes no balls for them to cut a player that causes no effect to do so. But taking a cap hit to get an underachieving player off your team sends a huge message. Besides the message that hey, we messed up, and we are making amends. Good idea IMO.

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by saintswhodi]

04-28-2005, 04:32 PM	#11
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! whodi -- I COULD ask what kind of message is being sent when you draft a convicted thief? I COULD say that by drafting a convicted thief that it sends a message to the team that they\'ll be given another chance in New Orleans. But, I\'m not!! And I could tell you the message being sent by drafting McPherson is hey, we will give you a SECOND chance, just not INFINITE chances. Do you agree Sully has had more than once chance to prove himself even a half decent football player? I say hell yes he has. He had training camp last year, when he reported fat. Didn\'t get underweight before the season. Due to ineffectiveness was made inactive. Then abused the fact that he was inactive to make a bigger joke of the team. I would say what is being asked to keep him is more than a SECOND chance. It\'s closer to infinite. Then he says he has a changed attitude, and still shows up overweight to the conditioning program. I don\'t care if it was 20 pounds as opposed to 50, overweight is overweight. What was he doing the whole time he wasn\'t playing but eating. Kool, you seem to be of the opinion the only message that can be sent by cutting Sully is don\'t be lazy, and thus would require an overwhelming number of lazy players to be sent. Not at all. You can send the message to players who seem to have gotten complacent that they need to improve too. That positions on this team are no longer an entitlement, but they are earned. It doesn\'t just effect lazy players, it effects the whole atmosphere of a team of underachievers. If I am there, and they cut a guy they gave up two first round draft picks for just two years ago, I am no longer under the impression that I am sitting in the catbird seat and I actually need to get ny but in gear. If not, I could be next. And it needs to be like that IMO.

04-28-2005, 04:37 PM	#12
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! Whodi, 1. What do you think of my Sunk Cost idea? 2. You can send the message to players who seem to have gotten complacent that they need to improve too. Not by merely cutting Sullivan - that is ambiguous. It seems obvious that cutting Sullivan says don\'t be lazy. If you want it to say \"don\'t be complacent\", then you need to have some way of conveying that to the players. If that is so, you could convey \"don\'t be complacent\" without cutting anyone. I\'m not saying such a message couldn\'t be sent, but it won\'t be sent by merely cutting Sully.

04-28-2005, 04:37 PM	#13
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,713	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! I think the main message it\'ll send is we don\'t play favorites anymore. We don\'t care how much it costs to cut you, if its the best thing to do for this team, WE WILL DO IT! Take that 11.5 and shove it up your!!!

04-28-2005, 04:40 PM	#14
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! Here\'s what the article says: Says it\'s very possible that the Saints are going to make a statement to the rest of the players and cut him after June 1st. Now to me, that seems like more than just a don\'t be lazy message is gonna be sent by cutting Sully. Sully wasn\'t just lazy, he showed up to camp overweight, stayed overweight, and still was the day one starter. That sends a message that no matter what you do, you will keep your job. They started sending the message that was unacceptable halfway through the season. This will complete the message IMO. No more complacency. I guess we just see what the message would be differently. TO me, cutting Sully is a damn good way to send a message, especially if they are gonna meet with the teambefore that to let them know how things are gonna be.

04-28-2005, 04:41 PM	#15
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! Exactly Danno. That is what I am trying to say.

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

04-28-2005, 04:47 PM	#16
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! JKool, IMHO, is right. You don\'t have to cut players to send any message. Although, I admit, cutting a player could send a message. I just don\'t know if that is required. Anyway, like I said, I\'m not really worried about cutting someone to send a message. IF Sully gets cut, I hope it\'s for the right reasons(s) IF Sully can help us win some ball games, then he shouldn\'t be cut. If the coaching staff thinks he\'s not going to help, then he should be cut. The only message that\'s going to be sent by cutting Sullivan is that the New Orleans Saints messed up by drafting Sullivan in the first place. Maybe that should be a message to the front-office and the coaching staff!! JKool -- I have a comment on this question: 1. What do you think of my Sunk Cost idea? A \"sunk cost\" is a cost that you have already incurred and that you cannot recover. I don\'t see how this applies to Sullivan. As we don\'t know if it can be recovered or not. Whenever you make a decision, it has to be made according to what you know now and upon reasonable expectations of the future. Hoping that bad results from a past decision will eventually \"turn around\" if you stick with that decision is wishful thinking of the worst sort. It always takes courage to admit you made a bad choice and that you need to change your mind, but it is the only thing to do. It takes even more courage to try to convince others that they made bad choices and need to accept the sunk costs, but that\'s something you sometimes have to do. The only real question is will Sullivan ever pay off. And if you\'ve got the answer to that question ... I\'m all ears? [Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-28-2005, 04:52 PM	#17
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! Actually, Gumbo, a sunk cost is any cost that has been incurred in the past. That makes it irrelevant to rational decision making about what to do in the future. It is not about recoverable or not recoverable - it is explicitly NOT about that kind of thing. See my example above (and any finance text). Danno and Whodi, fine examples. I have changed my view on the message it might send. I just don\'t think cutting a player is necessary to making such a statement - in fact, it might be a very costly way to do so.

04-28-2005, 04:54 PM	#18
ssmitty 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,879	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! whodi, when given a 2nd chance and someone shows improvement, that\'s good...............when they fall by the wayside and have shown they can improve, i say another chance is acceptable..........would\'nt you want it it you were trying yet still tempted by whatever? change for the better is good but when trying to start anew it does take time in most cases......however, if they never show improvement or even try to show improvement then it becomes up to them to find themself, not you, to continually show them them the door they refuse to go through..........if they don\'t want to help themself, nothing anyone does will make a difference...at which point, the f.o. should say, we\'ll pray for you, goodluck. smitty
ssmitty 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,879

04-28-2005, 04:59 PM	#20
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! in fact, it might be a very costly way to do so. With this team, I think that\'s the point. What message does it send if it doesn\'t hurt the team at all to cut Sullivan? That sends absolutely no message at all. They are incurring no penalty for cutting a player who has yet to prove any worth to the team. But when cutting a player may actually harm the team in some way, and you do it anyway, you send the meassge that whatever it takes to make this team better, it will be done. That\'s why I like it. It takes no balls for them to cut a player that causes no effect to do so. But taking a cap hit to get an underachieving player off your team sends a huge message. Besides the message that hey, we messed up, and we are making amends. Good idea IMO. [Edited on 28/4/2005 by saintswhodi]