This pretty much sums it up

[pyledriver80]

How long did it take the Saints to turn it around?

How long did it take the Chargers to turn it around?

AND how long did it take the Bears to turn it around?

Are you answering a question with a question?

It took Saints GM Mickey Loomis 4 years to turn that team into a winner (came on after the 2002 season if I remember correctly)....

Nice try.

They are the perfect example of a team that made the moves required to go from bad to good in one year. Sean Payton, Drew Brees, Reggie Bush, Roman Harper, etc.


Perhaps Ted should scrap his plan and get the Saints blueprint. Oh wait, they sign FA's, nevermind

 

[Packnic]

Patriots way = 3 superbowls and more likely

Saints way = 0 Superbowls ever.


if you just offered up the idea that the Packers organization should ever follow the way of the New Orleans Saints. you are worse off than i thought and your opinion is losing more and more credibility.

 

[Arles]

The Saints were extremely fortunate last season.

1. They had the #2 pick and the team with the #1 pick decided to have a complete brain fart.
2. They signed a QB with an iffy shoulder and he ended up being completely healthy all season.
3. They got extremely lucky when 7th round "Camp body" Marques Colston ended up being a player.

You bring up Roman Harper, but he was done in October with a torn ACL - hard to see how he was a great addition. Let's look at how NO did via the draft - they have landed 6 starters and 3 additional depth guys since 2003 - with picks much higher than GB. I'm failing to see the blueprint here:

1. Draft poorly and pray a 7th round pick saves your team.
2. Throw a ton of money at a QB with a bum shoulder and have him perform like an MVP
3. Be bad enough the season before to where you get the #2 pick and the team with the #1 pick lets the best player slip to you.
4. Sign a young coach who does very well.
5. Focus on improving ST.
6. Sign a couple depth free agents (no playmakers or high priced guys)

I can see following #4-6 (TT has for the past two seasons), but it's a little hard to recreate 1-3 (the main reason for their success).

 

[Packnic]

if favre wasnt here, theres no way you could disagree with what TT is doing in general.

the thing is most of us understand that favre wont play forever... and that building around him will do nothing but stunt any semblance of a long term winning franchise.

Favre is here and i love that. and we should do everything we can to win while hes here, unless of course it doesnt make sense for the long term plan of the Green Bay Packers.

you either see it or you dont.

 

[Pack93z]

if favre wasnt here, theres no way you could disagree with what TT is doing in general.

the thing is most of us understand that favre wont play forever... and that building around him will do nothing but stunt any semblance of a long term winning franchise.

Favre is here and i love that. and we should do everything we can to win while hes here, unless of course it doesnt make sense for the long term plan of the Green Bay Packers.

you either see it or you dont.

So having a proven running game won't help the Packers long term? Come on. Having experience at WR won't help Rodgers? Really.

 

[all about da packers]

Nice try.

They are the perfect example of a team that made the moves required to go from bad to good in one year. Sean Payton, Drew Brees, Reggie Bush, Roman Harper, etc.

Perhaps Ted should scrap his plan and get the Saints blueprint. Oh wait, they sign FA's, nevermind

What do you mean nice try?

Look at Loomis's record before that... you think he didn't make mistakes then or that he got high profile free agents then?

Yeah he signed Brees, that was a wise decision. As for Bush, don't give credit to Loomis for doing something everyone else would have done... blame the Texans GM for being a moron and not drafting Bush.

Look at Loomis's GM record before last year, it is sub-par. You can't simply ignore that because he finally had one outstanding season. His record during the 03/04/05 season was a terrible 19 Wins - 29 Losses.

Just like the Chargers and Bears. If you'd done some reading, you'd have realized that their GMs took over 4-5 years ago too, and had 4-12/3-13 seasons in their 1st/2nd seasons, and they slipped back to less than .500 in their 4th season also in one case.

Any GM needs to time to get his type of players in the system. Two years is hardy enough time, as current contenders like the Bears, Chargers, and Saints prove.

 

[all about da packers]

So having a proven running game won't help the Packers long term? Come on. Having experience at WR won't help Rodgers? Really.

A running game will help, but all great rushing attacks were developed... all great RBs were, at one time, rookies.

 

[warhawk]

How long did it take the Saints to turn it around?

How long did it take the Chargers to turn it around?

AND how long did it take the Bears to turn it around?

Are you answering a question with a question?

It took Saints GM Mickey Loomis 4 years to turn that team into a winner (came on after the 2002 season if I remember correctly)....

Nice try.

They are the perfect example of a team that made the moves required to go from bad to good in one year. Sean Payton, Drew Brees, Reggie Bush, Roman Harper, etc.


Perhaps Ted should scrap his plan and get the Saints blueprint. Oh wait, they sign FA's, nevermind

You know Pyle it's statements like these that make you look just down right foolish and there's just nobody here that is going to believe that kind of crap.

The Chicago Bears and Saints were good solid teams with STOUT DEFENSIVE LINES before every getting where they have. They darn sure didn't just make these lines happen in one year.

The Bears picked up Harris (a beast) and Tank Johnson along with N. Vasher and WR Berrian in the '04 draft. You know, the draft the Packers whiffed on.

In '03 the picked up Bragg's, Grossman, Haynes, Scott, and picked up Hillenmeyer(thanks to us) and found undrafted Okoyi.

The Bears came into '06 with ALL TWENTY TWO STARTERS from the previous year. They didn't turn nothin' around in one year. They built a team from the ground up and that was solidified with the Harris, Johnson, one/two punch from the '04 draft that MAKES that defense what it is.

It is obvious how important these two are to the whole makeup of the Bears because without these two they look very average and become extremely mediocre.

You know I hear all this *****in' about not getting this guy or that guy or whoever and the bottom line is if your defensive line is going to get pushed all over by the offense you ARE NOT GOING TO WIN.

We finally have a defensive line that I would say can now win the line of scrimmage battle with any team in our division. I expect this group to do this and TT had to address EVERY SINGLE GUY on this line at one point or another to get it here.

Kampman became a FA, Pickett a FA, Jenkins needed a deal worked, and we drafted Harrell. Just like in Chicago it took a couple of years to put a real solid group on the field.

But of course we should all follow you, Pyle, with this thinking that teams just **** out of no where in a year. Sorry guy that just ain't going to work for me.

 

[all about da packers]

Pyle, did you know the Colts started 21 draft picks last year?

 

[Packnic]

i just dont get how these people dont see the obvious glaring similarities in our young team and some of the greats.

i guess the patiots and the colts just **** out superstars. cause they sure arent going out and buying the big names up.(until NE up and lost thier mind) you gotta start somewhere guys

 

[pyledriver80]

i just dont get how these people dont see the obvious glaring similarities in our young team and some of the greats.

i guess the patiots and the colts just **** out superstars. cause they sure arent going out and buying the big names up.(until NE up and lost thier mind) you gotta start somewhere guys

Yeah except the Patriots are signing FA's left and right!

 

[tromadz]

i just dont get how these people dont see the obvious glaring similarities in our young team and some of the greats.

i guess the patiots and the colts just **** out superstars. cause they sure arent going out and buying the big names up.(until NE up and lost thier mind) you gotta start somewhere guys

Yeah except the Patriots are signing FA's left and right!

and NE is in like year 8 of their plan, GB is in year 3

 

[all about da packers]

Saints GM Mickey Loomis's combined record as a GM in 03/04/05 was 19 Wins - 29 Losses.

Not exactly an overnight success story.

 

[cheesey]

Patriots way = 3 superbowls and more likely

Saints way = 0 Superbowls ever.


if you just offered up the idea that the Packers organization should ever follow the way of the New Orleans Saints. you are worse off than i thought and your opinion is losing more and more credibility.

I'm not gonna say what i'm thinking.........i'll just say i agree with Pacnic here.

 

[pyledriver80]

Saints GM Mickey Loomis's combined record as a GM in 03/04/05 was 19 Wins - 29 Losses.

Not exactly an overnight success story.

What are you trying to point out?

It just goes to show that there is another way to go about it. You can be terrible one year, bring in rookies and FA's and be a powerhouse the next.

But lets be content spending 6 years building a team that may or may not pan out.

 

[tromadz]

Saints GM Mickey Loomis's combined record as a GM in 03/04/05 was 19 Wins - 29 Losses.

Not exactly an overnight success story.

What are you trying to point out?

It just goes to show that there is another way to go about it. You can be terrible one year, bring in rookies and FA's and be a powerhouse the next.

But lets be content spending 6 years building a team that may or may not pan out.

Powerhouse?

Did they win the superbowl?

Will they? We'll see. Well I WILL. You wont. You know everything already.

 

[cheesey]

Saints GM Mickey Loomis's combined record as a GM in 03/04/05 was 19 Wins - 29 Losses.

Not exactly an overnight success story.

What are you trying to point out?

It just goes to show that there is another way to go about it. You can be terrible one year, bring in rookies and FA's and be a powerhouse the next.

But lets be content spending 6 years building a team that may or may not pan out.

Pyle......arn't you the SAME person that keeps yelling "TT is only 12-20 in his 2 years here!"
Uh......so 19-29 is some how better????
I think Allabout is trying to point that out to you. But i guess it would just show you how silly your argument is, so you prefer to ignore that FACT.

Oh.....but you label ME a hypocrite. Nice.

 

[all about da packers]

What are you trying to point out?

It just goes to show that there is another way to go about it. You can be terrible one year, bring in rookies and FA's and be a powerhouse the next.

But lets be content spending 6 years building a team that may or may not pan out.

Buddy, the Saints GM had 3 years to bring draft picks on board.

He didn't just become successful based off of one draft class. He had 4 previous ones to build the team around.

You think those classes may have contributed? I sure do...

You can't change the team in one year or two years coming into a new situation. You need time.

The Saints prove that. The GM had 3 failing years before finally turning it around. THEY WENT THROUGH THE BAD BEFORE GETTING TO THE GOOD.

 

[pyledriver80]

What are you trying to point out?

It just goes to show that there is another way to go about it. You can be terrible one year, bring in rookies and FA's and be a powerhouse the next.

But lets be content spending 6 years building a team that may or may not pan out.

Buddy, the Saints GM had 3 years to bring draft picks on board.

He didn't just become successful based off of one draft class. He had 4 previous ones to build the team around.

You think those classes may have contributed? I sure do...

You can't change the team in one year or two years coming into a new situation. You need time.

The Saints prove that. The GM had 3 failing years before finally turning it around. THEY WENT THROUGH THE BAD BEFORE GETTING TO THE GOOD.

LOL, They were HORRENDOUS the year before.

I guess you are saying Drew Brees had very little to do with it.

 

[tromadz]

note to self: never **** off cheesey

 

[all about da packers]

LOL, They were HORRENDOUS the year before.

I guess you are saying Drew Brees had very little to do with it.

No, I'm just saying you can't say they became that good because of just Drew Brees.

They also had a core of people from previous drafts (ala Will Smith) contributing.

 

[pyledriver80]

Saints GM Mickey Loomis's combined record as a GM in 03/04/05 was 19 Wins - 29 Losses.

Not exactly an overnight success story.

What are you trying to point out?

It just goes to show that there is another way to go about it. You can be terrible one year, bring in rookies and FA's and be a powerhouse the next.

But lets be content spending 6 years building a team that may or may not pan out.

Pyle......arn't you the SAME person that keeps yelling "TT is only 12-20 in his 2 years here!"
Uh......so 19-29 is some how better????
I think Allabout is trying to point that out to you. But i guess it would just show you how silly your argument is, so you prefer to ignore that FACT.

Oh.....but you label ME a hypocrite. Nice.

I get a kick out of you trying to point things out. I can never understand it.

What was hypocritical?

TT is 12-20 and they were mediocre last year because TT sat on his hands as usual.

Loomis was 19-29 and realized that to make a push you have to be active so he signed a big time FA in Brees instead of sticking to some mythical "plan". They were playing in January.

Perhaps Ted should copy thier approach

 

[tromadz]

myth.


LMAO!

 

[pyledriver80]

myth.


LMAO!

Tromadz

*****

 

[cheesey]

Saints GM Mickey Loomis's combined record as a GM in 03/04/05 was 19 Wins - 29 Losses.

Not exactly an overnight success story.

What are you trying to point out?

It just goes to show that there is another way to go about it. You can be terrible one year, bring in rookies and FA's and be a powerhouse the next.

But lets be content spending 6 years building a team that may or may not pan out.

Pyle......arn't you the SAME person that keeps yelling "TT is only 12-20 in his 2 years here!"
Uh......so 19-29 is some how better????
I think Allabout is trying to point that out to you. But i guess it would just show you how silly your argument is, so you prefer to ignore that FACT.

Oh.....but you label ME a hypocrite. Nice.

I get a kick out of you trying to point things out. I can never understand it.

What was hypocritical?

TT is 12-20 and they were mediocre last year because TT sat on his hands as usual.

Loomis was 19-29 and realized that to make a push you have to be active so he signed a big time FA in Brees instead of sticking to some mythical "plan". They were playing in January.

Perhaps Ted should copy thier approach

Of COURSE you can't understand it! I use LOGIC to back up my points. You go on blind hatred!
Like i said.....your such a genius, I'm SURE that you could step into TT's job and make the Packers instant Super Bowl contenders. Heck, you seem to think you have ALL the answers!
Why arn't you already a GM for an NFL team? You seem to be wasting all your infinite knowledge on poor hypocritical idiots like me.