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

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.
 
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.
 
Actually there was vry very little difference. Jeff Blake was on a Brees like tangent, and had total control of his offense, made smart audibles and kept the team in a position to win games. The defense wasn't great but they were playing well as a unit. The difference between 2000 and now would be that to this point Brees has stayed healthy and Blake did not.

That would be purely looking at the 2000 season vs the 2006 season. And not trying to take advantage of an opportunity to insult Haslett.
 
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.

Love the way you put that so clearly, LSSPam. :bier:
 
Overall Haz's team had better players overall.
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.

Are you talking about 2000 or 2002?

In 2000, by the Minnesota game they had lost SO many key players and Minnesota had a really nice offense.

However, in 2002, I still have visions of Culpepper dropping the ball and the entire defense just WATCHING him get up and score.

inexcusable.


edit: ahh, missed this line, you must have meant Tampa in 2002, sorry
especially after beating the best team in the NFL twice that year
 
Last edited:
Are you talking about 2000 or 2002?

In 2000, by the Minnesota game they had lost SO many key players and Minnesota had a really nice offense.

However, in 2002, I still have visions of Culpepper dropping the ball and the entire defense just WATCHING him get up and score.

inexcusable.

Actually 2000, Haz's 1st year.
 
Well, it's difficult to say because Payton's first year isn't finished yet. We could melt down and miss the playoffs, or we could run the table and win the Super Bowl. In which case, Payton's and Haslett's seasons wouldn't be similar at all. But to answer the original question the best I can, I'd say:

1.) Payton has not had the key injuries that Haslett had.

2.) Payton has far more talent at the skill positions.

3.) Haslett had better lines.

4.) Haslett's defense was more opportunistic.

5.) Haslett had better special teams.

6.) Payton's team overall seems more disciplined.

Unfortunately, both teams are losing to the better teams that they face, and that's a trend Payton will have to overcome. Also, Payton has yet to deal with any real adversity (no, a two-game losing streak is not adversity), and it will be interesting to see how he handles success after this season. Haslett arrived on the scene with a bang and then made a plethora of bad decisions to end his tenure with a whimper; for that reason alone I'm reluctant to crown Payton until he wins consistently.
 
I don't know. That 2000 team was very good. The defense really put pressure on the QB and the DBs were pretty decent. That team had more injuries than any team I can remember. They lost their starting QB, their starting RB, in the playoffs lost Joe Horn and our starting CB and still won. I love this 2006 team and Sean Payton, I think this team has a shot at the Superbowl and will be good for a very long time. We have the #1 offense in the league and a defense that is a player or 2 away - but that takes NOTHING away from that 2000 team. They had heart and proved it on the field. They played what was the best team in the league 3 times that year and beat them twice, once in the playoffs, if Brian Milne doesn't make a heads up play and jump on that ball that Rams team could have gone on to the Superbowl. You have to give the 2000 Saints credit. After that season obviously it all went into the toilet. That should not happen under Payton. I think he's overall a MUCH better coach.
 
I've been thinking about this for a while now. I hate to say it but I heard a lot of the exact same praises of Haslett the first year as we're now giving to Payton (probably by the same people even). And Haslett won Coach of the year too I think (Which I'm sure Payton will get if we keep winning).

Consistency, you can say the same thing about this team. We started 3-0, then in the middle we've done just 4-4 and we'll see what the end is. And turnovers are very inconsistent (and killing us). Not saying we haven't met some tough teams in the middle but still. I don't remember who the early opponents were, but you can probably explain the early losses with a brand new team that we had that year[2000] as well.

And people did not quit in 2000 either as some said; remember almost all our receivers were down at the end Joe Horn was out, so was other receivers. Jeff Blake got injuried and we kept winning, Ricky Williams was out some games, but they bounced back and stayed competitive and fighting. We haven't had to overcome such things yet this season; that's often what kills playoff runs (see Giants and maybe Seagulls).

Haslett/Mueller also totally revamped the team in 2000 from the "Iron era" team the year before (Adding Jeff Blake, Joe Horn, Brooks, Willie Jackson +++). In fact I think the number of changes on the roster was bigger 1999->2000 than 2005->2006 in number of new players....

If you go back to the archives, I'm sure you'll see the exact same praises of Haslett as Payton are getting in these days, as well as the same bashing and comparing to the old coach (Ditka and Haslett respectively). I really like Payton but I know I also really liked Haslett that first year, so I'm still not ready to hail him as the new messiah. I think its way premature to draw any conclusions about who's the best one at this point. After we win the SB this year I'll be right there on the bandwagon :)
 
I remember the 2000 team on offense was really confident and you knew that they would convert those 3rd and 8s. Its similar this year as well. However, I do think the 2000 offense was more of a pure ball control offense. This year's offense seems to be able to do anything they want. Want a quick score - this year's team can do it. Want a 8 minute drive to put points on the board and break the opponents' back - you got it.
Drew Brees makes a huge difference.

On defense the 2000 team made plays. This year's team does not. When I think of 2000 I just think of playmakers - Sammy 'Ball Hawk" Knioght, Darren Smith (while old, dude just made play after play), and LaRoi Glover to name a few. This year's defense is better than I thought they would be but they really don't have any playmakers (maybe Charles Grant).
 
Last edited:
Problem is that LSSPam isn't right. It was Mueller who brought in problem players like Connell, Grady Jackson or Dale Carter. And it was Mueller who brought in many of these "athletes" who couldn't play. And the fans applauded these moves.
 
Problem is that LSSPam isn't right. It was Mueller who brought in problem players like Connell, Grady Jackson or Dale Carter. And it was Mueller who brought in many of these "athletes" who couldn't play. And the fans applauded these moves.


And most of those players weren't on the team in 2000. It wasn't till after the 2000 season that Haslett fell in love with the rams and tried to duplicate thier athlete first philosophy. But in 2000 the blueprint was almost identical. We've actually spent 6 years getting lost and then right back to where we were in 2000.
 
Problem is that LSSPam isn't right. It was Mueller who brought in problem players like Connell, Grady Jackson or Dale Carter. And it was Mueller who brought in many of these "athletes" who couldn't play. And the fans applauded these moves.

You're partially correct. Haslett borrowed his personnal philosophy from Mueller. When Mueller was fired, Haslett became the primary influence on the players we acquired, and the pattern continued. Tebucky Jones, Jonathon Sullivan, Sedrick Hodge, etc.

I'm sure a lot of fans applauded those moves. I know I applauded some (Sullivan for instance). Remarkably, that still doesn't make those good moves or justify them.
 
You're partially correct. Haslett borrowed his personnal philosophy from Mueller. When Mueller was fired, Haslett became the primary influence on the players we acquired, and the pattern continued. Tebucky Jones, Jonathon Sullivan, Sedrick Hodge, etc.

I'm sure a lot of fans applauded those moves. I know I applauded some (Sullivan for instance). Remarkably, that still doesn't make those good moves or justify them.

I think the problem is that when comparing the 2000 to the 2006 seasons, the players you mention are irrelevant.
 
Connell was not on that 2000 squad. We signed him as a FA prior to the 2001 season.
 

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

    Back
    Top Bottom