buckeyemike Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 IMO, MM HAD to resign. He obviously saw himself as the odd man out, and the last holdover of TD's (except Modrak...maybe). Nevertheless, I was surprised by the timing of it. Listen, we have no idea what's going to happen here. Marv's a bright guy, but the guys on Sirius NFL radio this AM were wondering if he and Mr. Wilson were a) senile, or b) had lost their minds. I would like to see Jim Haslett come in here, but I have my reservations about him. The Saints always underachieved with Haslett, so that would probably be a wash, compared with recent seasons in Buffalo. However, Jim Haslett managed to keep that team fairly intact, facing obstacles no team in the 85 year history of the NFL has had to face. Many on this board got what they wanted with the housecleaning...now we need to see if there will be success or complete unmitigated disaster. And I'm seeing both predictions here. The pat answer? I don't know what will happen...and neither do any of you. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 IMO, MM HAD to resign. He obviously saw himself as the odd man out, and the last holdover of TD's (except Modrak...maybe). Nevertheless, I was surprised by the timing of it. Listen, we have no idea what's going to happen here. Marv's a bright guy, but the guys on Sirius NFL radio this AM were wondering if he and Mr. Wilson were a) senile, or b) had lost their minds. I would like to see Jim Haslett come in here, but I have my reservations about him. The Saints always underachieved with Haslett, so that would probably be a wash, compared with recent seasons in Buffalo. However, Jim Haslett managed to keep that team fairly intact, facing obstacles no team in the 85 year history of the NFL has had to face. Many on this board got what they wanted with the housecleaning...now we need to see if there will be success or complete unmitigated disaster. And I'm seeing both predictions here. The pat answer? I don't know what will happen...and neither do any of you. Mike 564910[/snapback] mularky didn't have to resign.........if he went out next year, won some games for a change, people's minds would change pretty quick about the guy.......he failed here, and i'm not sorry to see him go, but he quit and you can't paint that with another brush....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I would like to see Jim Haslett come in here, but I have my reservations about him. The Saints always underachieved with Haslett, so that would probably be a wash, compared with recent seasons in Buffalo. However, Jim Haslett managed to keep that team fairly intact, facing obstacles no team in the 85 year history of the NFL has had to face. 564910[/snapback] A guy who admitted to taking steroids (only for a little bit in the offseason......riiiiiiiight!), led a habitually underachieving team in New Orleans that folded @ the end of the season annually, AND accused one of the greatest Bills (and, arguably, my favorite all-time Bill) of also using steriods? No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 A guy who admitted to taking steroids (only for a little bit in the offseason......riiiiiiiight!), led a habitually underachieving team in New Orleans that folded @ the end of the season annually, AND accused one of the greatest Bills (and, arguably, my favorite all-time Bill) of also using steriods? No thanks. 564937[/snapback] Henderson Rich, Henderson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 A guy who admitted to taking steroids (only for a little bit in the offseason......riiiiiiiight!), led a habitually underachieving team in New Orleans that folded @ the end of the season annually, AND accused one of the greatest Bills (and, arguably, my favorite all-time Bill) of also using steriods? No thanks. 564937[/snapback] Who's on your list Rich? I was surprised to not see Sherman on the list in the D&C article this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Henderson Rich, Henderson! 564946[/snapback] Bond James, Bond Might be better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeally Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 IMO, MM HAD to resign. He obviously saw himself as the odd man out, and the last holdover of TD's (except Modrak...maybe). Nevertheless, I was surprised by the timing of it. Listen, we have no idea what's going to happen here. Marv's a bright guy, but the guys on Sirius NFL radio this AM were wondering if he and Mr. Wilson were a) senile, or b) had lost their minds. I would like to see Jim Haslett come in here, but I have my reservations about him. The Saints always underachieved with Haslett, so that would probably be a wash, compared with recent seasons in Buffalo. However, Jim Haslett managed to keep that team fairly intact, facing obstacles no team in the 85 year history of the NFL has had to face. Many on this board got what they wanted with the housecleaning...now we need to see if there will be success or complete unmitigated disaster. And I'm seeing both predictions here. The pat answer? I don't know what will happen...and neither do any of you. Mike 564910[/snapback] Alright, everyone can stop using the phrase "I don't know what will happen and neither do any of you". I think we all understand that is a firm grasp of the obvious. The point of boards like this is to bat around what we think or want to happen, no matter how smart, stupid, or irrelevant some of the ideas are. I think this is a good forum to discuss issues as fans. Anyhow, I'm really interested to see how this shakes out. I'm really skeptical about Haslet and 2 years ago, I would have said Cotrell was a good candidate. At this point, I'm not sure. I'm not necessarily one who believes that a person needs to be hired with ties to the organization. Let's interview some new blood along with the old. The timing of this whole thing is intersting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroni Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 but I DO know ................ We will hire a new coaching staff ....... and ...... 20% of the posters at TBD will say the new staff will immediatly turn the franchise around and predict a Super Bowl win this next season. 20% of the posters at TBD will say the new staff is the worst possible picks that the team could have made, and predict the team will be moving to ______ (fill in the blank) within the next three years. 60% of the posters will just get sick of all of the bickering and start posting less and less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeally Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 but I DO know ................We will hire a new coaching staff ....... and ...... 20% of the posters at TBD will say the new staff will immediatly turn the franchise around and predict a Super Bowl win this next season. 20% of the posters at TBD will say the new staff is the worst possible picks that the team could have made, and predict the team will be moving to ______ (fill in the blank) within the next three years. 60% of the posters will just get sick of all of the bickering and start posting less and less. 565087[/snapback] Are you some kind of mind reader??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 but I DO know ................We will hire a new coaching staff ....... and ...... 20% of the posters at TBD will say the new staff will immediatly turn the franchise around and predict a Super Bowl win this next season. 20% of the posters at TBD will say the new staff is the worst possible picks that the team could have made, and predict the team will be moving to ______ (fill in the blank) within the next three years. 60% of the posters will just get sick of all of the bickering and start posting less and less. 565087[/snapback] The percentage on the posts whining about posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 The pat answer? I don't know what will happen...and neither do any of you.Mike 564910[/snapback] Should we move this to the new STFU forum ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 In thinking more and more about Haslett, I think he'd be extreme. Either extremely good (because he learned what not to do with NO and has grown as a coach) or an extreme disaster (because he's just not smart enough to match wits with Belichek or Saban 4xs a year). I will say that I'm glad I don't have to make that decision and have faith that Marv will find the right guy for the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Why is it widely considered that New Orleans underachieved? They have Aaron Brooks (cannon arm, shoddy decisions), Deuce McAllister (Mr. IR himself) and Joe Horn (one of the NFL's better wideouts.) I'm not sure there's much else going on there. Haslett was 45-51 in six seasons with the team (19-29 @ home, 26-22 on the road), but 42-38 when you take out the 3-13 season they had this year in an impossible situation after the hurricane. He led the 2000 team to the only playoff victory in franchise history. Playing in a division where in the past 4 years, Tampa has won a Super Bowl, Carolina went to the Super Bowl, and the Falcons made it to the NFC title game, I don't understand how we call the Saints underachieving. Does anybody really think they have good players??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted January 13, 2006 Author Share Posted January 13, 2006 Should we move this to the new STFU forum ? 565101[/snapback] There's a new forum I don't know about? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Haslett was 45-51 in six seasons with the team (19-29 @ home, 26-22 on the road), but 42-38 when you take out the 3-13 season they had this year in an impossible situation after the hurricane. He led the 2000 team to the only playoff victory in franchise history. 565131[/snapback] True, but he also compiled the following stats in the later months of the season (November, December, January): November 9-12 December 10-16 January 1-1 Even by taking off last season's horrible stats, you're left w/ the following: November 8-10 December 10-12 January 1-0 In the 6 Novembers, 6 Decembers, and 2 Januarys Haslett coached the Saints: Months where Saints were above .500 mark: 4 Months where Saints were @ .500 mark: 2 Months where Saints were below .500 mark: 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 A guy who admitted to taking steroids (only for a little bit in the offseason......riiiiiiiight!), led a habitually underachieving team in New Orleans that folded @ the end of the season annually, AND accused one of the greatest Bills (and, arguably, my favorite all-time Bill) of also using steriods? No thanks. 564937[/snapback] i hate to keep repeating myself, but most everyone who fought in the trenches took steroids in the 80s. it's common knowledge. you don't think that 300 pounders (and even 280 pounders) started to appear in bunches for the first time ever simply because they more conscious about consuming more protein, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts