What's The Difference? Payton's 1st Year Saints & Haslett's 1st Year Saints? (1 Viewer)

Madmarsha

Feral housewife
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
38,337
Reaction score
56,778
Online
They were quitters. I don't remember any team playing full tilt 4 quarters as much as this team does.
 

Sandman

Kind of Messed Up
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
15,824
Reaction score
10,244
Offline
I could be wrong, but seems like the rookie Coach Haz's team thrived on creating turnovers and making a lot of unorthodox gambles, like an onside kick to start the half. And they played with a chip on their shoulder, playing up emotion as underdogs. Payton's team has won despite not getting turnovers, their hallmark is playing smart and with few mental errors, gained respect early instead of late, and continued playing well after no longer being underdogs. Only time will tell the rest.

I was going to say the same thing. Haslett's team always seem to win on a wild play (Hakim drops the ball!). Payton's team is methodical, especially on offense. Watching the Saints offense move down the field now is like watching a machine. I love it.

You know what you are going to get with Payton's team. I never knew what was going to happen with Haslett's team that first year.
 
OP
OP
kfran

kfran

TwoDat! Let's Do It Again
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
8,225
Reaction score
5,177
Location
Irving, Texas via NOLA
Offline
They were quitters. I don't remember any team playing full tilt 4 quarters as much as this team does.

I'm not sure they're were many quitters on Haz's 1st year team. 2nd year and beyond, yes... 1st year? not so sure.
 

MamaRoux

Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2000
Messages
9,123
Reaction score
3,284
Location
Wherever I go? There I AM~!
Offline
I had actaully written about the similarities (or not) of these two Coaches,"has-been" and Coach Payton and these two teams with the same records at this time of each's season.

There are NO similarities other than the records after 11 games! From the use of DEUCE and Reggie vs. the whole RW debacle (although inherited by "has-been") to the intelligent play of Drew to the pure luck and haphazard factor of brooks, to the cohesive defense and dogged pursuit of this year's team to the opportunistic defense of the 2000 team to the long list of WR's who bring energy to this team to the WR's play that typically had no YAC iin 2000, and there are so many differences in the whole "Vibe" (if you will) of the two teams it's not even funny and IMHO, I'll take the latter version SAINTS any day of the week and I would , If given the scenarios of a lucky team with an erratic QB verses a real TEAM led by a smart and smooth QB like Drew, I'd take the "Cool Brees of New Orleans" each and every time!

So , there is my take on the situation and BTW; I think we have a great chance at making the play-offs and maybe more! Will I be dissappointed if we don't? Sure!

However I am proud of this version of my New Orleans SAINTS Team and happy with how they are playing even if we were to lose out ( although I truly don't believe that CAN happen much less will happen!).

!!!!!!!!! GEAUX SAINTS GEAUX !!!!!!!!!!
 

lavered

Pro-Bowler
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
765
Reaction score
504
Location
NC by way of Algiers
Offline
Good question. I loved 2000 and celebrated the team's success. That big win over the Niners was just beautiful. But I always felt that the 2000 teams always seemed on the verge of losing the game. I never felt they were in control. While Blake and Brooks had some great games, I felt that, as one of the previous posters said, we were more lucky than good. Under Peyton -- and maybe I still just giddy over winning -- I think he has somehow found quality players with a quality plan. We seem to have control and even be in the games we lose. I have more confidence in this team, but old ways die hard and I'm still on the edge of my seat during the game and always waiting for the shoe to drop. But it never really does.
 

FWtex

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Sep 2, 2003
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
2,028
Offline
The two are exactly the same. Both turned over the roster, both had their teams playing with a chip on their shoulders, neither were expected to be anything.

This team definitely has more weapons on offense but Haslett had a great O-line.

The difference I see is that Payton is a student of the game and is more into studying weaknesses. Haslett was more about just winging it and trying to physically outplay everyteam.

Haslett probably could have been a good coach but he made HUGE off field mistakes. He got the big head and thought he was better than everyone, he lost trust and credibility with players by playing favorites over playing to win, he was not consistent with his personality nor his words.

I don't see Payton making any of those off the field mistakes because he has a personality to communicate with people and he appears to have defined convictions of how to win. He is not just winging it.
 

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,142
Age
40
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
I'm not sure they're were many quitters on Haz's 1st year team. 2nd year and beyond, yes... 1st year? not so sure.

Yeah total revisionist history to say the 2000 team had "quitters". 2000 team had some outstanding leaders, like La'Roi Glover, Sammy Knight, Jerry Fontenot. Of course those were all Ditka players (ironic, Ditka formed the core of our best season. Go figure) and Haslett promptly started getting rid of them for such studs like Grady Jackson, Tebucky Jones, Dale Carter, Albert Connell, etc.
 
OP
OP
kfran

kfran

TwoDat! Let's Do It Again
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
8,225
Reaction score
5,177
Location
Irving, Texas via NOLA
Offline
Yeah total revisionist history to say the 2000 team had "quitters". 2000 team had some outstanding leaders, like La'Roi Glover, Sammy Knight, Jerry Fontenot. Of course those were all Ditka players (ironic, Ditka formed the core of our best season. Go figure) and Haslett promptly started getting rid of them for such studs like Grady Jackson, Tebucky Jones, Dale Carter, Albert Connell, etc.


Oucccchhh, LSSpam: Albert Connell - That hurt :_rofl: :_rofl: :_rofl: :_rofl:

Wonder if Duece will ever forget him? In fact, wonder if Duece ever got the money back from him that Connell stole out of Duece's wallet... Man, I am glad those days are history!!
 
Last edited:

thundar1084

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
678
Reaction score
128
Location
Houston
Offline
Overall Haz's team had better players overall.

Rickey Williams, LeRoi Glover, Joe Johnson, Keith Mitchell, Willie Roaf, Sammy Knight, Joe Horn, Mark Fields, and a young Fred McAfee, just to name a few.

Actually Haz did less with more talent. That team should have gone farther into the playoffs, especially after beating the best team in the NFL twice that year. Losing to Minnesota was unacceptable.

This year's team is a group of overacheivers and mostly nonamers. Payton has gotten more out of less talent.

1 thing that is in Haz's favor is that he did win some BIG games that year. So far, except for Philly we haven't beaten a BIG name yet. We still have the Cowboys, Giants, and Panthers left on the schedule. We must beat at least one of them before I'll say that Payton is a better coach in his first year. Great coaches and players win the BIG games, especially the ones against physical teams. The knock on this year's team is that we're too soft. So far we are o - 3 against physical teams. I don't count Cincy as a physical team. I'll reserve my overall opinion until we beat a physical team.
 

Saintamaniac

Purple & Gold for Life
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
4,655
Reaction score
10,052
Age
52
Location
Laplace, LA
Offline
I have been thinking the same thing - but I think the difference this time we have a proven (yet still young) QB instead of a Cinderalla story QB.

Also I think our leadership and character is much better. When you think about Brees and McAllister, they are world's better than Brooks and Ricky were, and I don't see that changing.

In Haslett's first year it wasn't Brooks and Ricky that got us to 7-4 so you have to take QB out of the equation because we signed Blake as the QB. Blake got us to 7-4 then got hurt. I think the things that are different are the discipline, drafted players and FA contributions, accountability and play calling.
 
OP
OP
kfran

kfran

TwoDat! Let's Do It Again
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
8,225
Reaction score
5,177
Location
Irving, Texas via NOLA
Offline
After reading all the good answers, and the more I think about it, I beginning to understand that the major difference between Haz's 1st team and Payton's first year team is the following:

When hired, Payton was "ready" to become a head coach in the NFL. Haz simply wasn't... and still isn't.
 

Lee Newell

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Apr 10, 2002
Messages
2,591
Reaction score
313
Age
50
Offline
Forget for a moment how the Haslett Era ended, and think back to his first year with the Saints in 2000.

Coach Payton's 1st year team & Haz's 1st year team definitely had a few similarities.

For example, after twelve weeks, both teams were 7-4, and whether we want to admit it or not, most of us thought back then that Haz was a very good coach.

Both team's also made use of a lot of FA pickups, draft choices, and trades that year to be 7-4 after 12 weeks...

Yet, when I look at both teams, there's still something very different about Sean's 1st year 7-4 Saints...

How about you? Are they really different, or are we just "thinking" these 2006 Saints are a cut above Haz's 1st year team?



WOW! Very good ponder on your part. The major difference between that team and this team is discipline, direction and talent. This team is a tight knit group. They genuinely care about each other and are brother in arms on the field. They don't bad mouth each other. Example: When Drew had the bad game against the Bengal with three turnovers on his own, the whole team rallied behind him and kept him from sulking on the sidelines.
 

ThibodauxSaint

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
2,315
Location
Thibodaux, LA
Offline
I think the difference between this team and the 2000 team is consistency. If I remember correctly we started slow out of the gate with a 1-3 record in 2000 and then we went on a 6 game winning streak. and then finished the season 3-3. I can remember beating the Rams one week and then getting destroyed the next week by Denver. With Payton's team I know what I'm going to see every week.

I think the 2000 team had more depth than this years team. If I'm remembering correctly we lost a few starters in preseason and then through the course of the regular season we lost our starting QB , starting running back, and a few other players. Even with all that we continued on to get to the playoffs and get our first playoff victory. I would also say we had a better defense that year with a fierce pass rush and a secondary that was full of ball hawks, especially Sammy Knight.
 

bradman1965

Redacted
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
9,377
Reaction score
3,164
Offline
2000 was pretty special.

Good defense. Offense got into a rhythm. Went on a nice winning streak. Very similar to 1987. In the end, too many injuries to key players.

2001 and on was inconsistent, crazy making, but 2000 was a good team and Haslett did a good job.

Just IMHO.
 

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,142
Age
40
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
After reading all the good answers, and the more I think about it, I beginning to understand that the major difference between Haz's 1st team and Payton's first year team is the following:

When hired, Payton was "ready" to become a head coach in the NFL. Haz simply wasn't... and still isn't.

Well yes. Payton understands the foundation of his success (leadership, effort, "players") and has intentionally built his team on those principals. Haslett accidentally fell into a team with a lot of that (overachievers like Sammy Knight), didn't grasp why he had success, and then promptly dismissed the reasons for his success and loaded up on guys who
a) didn't care/weren't motivated (Grady Jackson)
b) had great talent but zero football ability/instincts (Tebucky Jones)
c) were toxic (Albert Connell)

Which is why there is every reason to suppose Paytons success will be sustainable while Hasletts was not.
 

ThibodauxSaint

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
2,315
Location
Thibodaux, LA
Offline
Well yes. Payton understands the foundation of his success (leadership, effort, "players") and has intentionally built his team on those principals. Haslett accidentally fell into a team with a lot of that (overachievers like Sammy Knight), didn't grasp why he had success, and then promptly dismissed the reasons for his success and loaded up on guys who
a) didn't care/weren't motivated (Grady Jackson)
b) had great talent but zero football ability/instincts (Tebucky Jones)
c) were toxic (Albert Connell)

Which is why there is every reason to suppose Paytons success will be sustainable while Hasletts was not.

I agree. The first thing Payton did when he got here was rid the roster of Haslett-type players (Gandy,Sullivan, Stallworth,Brooks) and started bringing in good character guys.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest SaintsReport Originals

Utopia Draft: The Saints' Ideal (Realistic) Scenario
By Dan Levy - posted 4/28/2022

Sea Change: Taysom Hill's "New" Role and What it Means for the Saints
By Dan Levy - posted 4/06/2022

  Q&A: AMA (Ask Me Anything) with Dan Levy
5/8/22 | 4/20/22

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines