Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints

Defense !!

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Picking the 2006 Top 25 in January is dumber than an improvised lateral on the dead run to an unsuspecting teammate. (Was that really you, Reggie Bush?) But that's the job today, pending radical rewrite after the NFL draft evacuation ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-09-2006, 10:11 AM   #31
The Dark Overlord
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: dirty south
Posts: 3,450
RE: Defense !!1

Picking the 2006 Top 25 in January is dumber than an improvised lateral on the dead run to an unsuspecting teammate. (Was that really you, Reggie Bush?) But that's the job today, pending radical rewrite after the NFL draft evacuation is over and signing day is complete.


What follows is the first word on next season:


1. Texas Longhorns
Why: The monkey is off their back and lies dead at the Longhorns' feet. They know how to win championships -- and if Vince Young comes back to join his deep cast of skill-position support, they'll win another one.


Why not: Four major losses on defense, and there's no guarantee that the perfect chemistry from this year will carry over.


2. Ohio State Buckeyes
Why: Did you see Troy Smith, Ted Ginn and Antonio Pittman carve up Notre Dame in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl?


Why not: The Buckeyes lose all three members of a great linebacking crew, plus two key offensive linemen. And they have to play in Austin next fall.


3. West Virginia Mountaineers
Why: One of the surprise teams of 2005 should be better in '06. Quarterback Pat White and running back Steve Slaton were amazingly productive as freshmen, and they have plenty of other offensive weapons to rely on.


Why not: The secondary must be rebuilt, and we all remember how the Mountaineers underachieved in 2004 with top 10 expectations.


4. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
Why: Brady Quinn, Jeff Samardzija, Anthony Fasano and Darius Walker should all return along with another strong line, so the offense will torch scoreboards again. The defense will improve. And there's a strong recruiting class coming in. Charlie Weis is just getting started.


Why not: The Irish will be breaking in some new linebackers against a schedule that includes six 2005 bowl squads
.


5. USC Trojans
Why: If you've been paying attention the past three years, you know why. Regardless of the expected NFL exodus, there is plenty of talent ready to step forward at Troy.


Why not: All good things come to an end -- especially when the best and most experienced players in recent school history are gone.



6. LSU Tigers
Why: Tons of talent at the skill positions and the defensive backfield, and tons of momentum from that flattening of Miami in the Peach Bowl.


Why not: Some key losses on both lines. Settling on a quarterback could be troublesome -- and Les Miles can ask Phil Fulmer about what a quarterback controversy can do to a team's chemistry.


7. Florida Gators
Why: Chris Leak should continue to progress in Urban Meyer's offense, and Meyer should have a better handle on what will work in the SEC. Lots of other talent to be found on both sides of the ball, and another very good recruiting class is on the way.


Why not: If Leak looked skittish behind a veteran offensive line, what will he look like behind a rebuilt one in '06?


8. Oklahoma Sooners
Why: Adrian Peterson should return to Heisman contender form, Rhett Bomar should take a major step forward at quarterback, and the defense should be up to usual Bob Stoops standards.


Why not: A shaky offensive line in 2005 only gets younger in 2006. And although Bomar impressed with his toughness in the Holiday Bowl, he's still got a long way to go before mastering his position.


9. Miami Hurricanes
Why: Kyle Wright will be better, and in Greg Olsen and Ryan Moore, he'll have a couple of quality targets to throw to. The Hurricanes' secondary should be excellent again.


Why not: Concerns exist regarding the leadership of the program, from the head coach to the upperclassmen, after the disaster in the Peach Bowl. Keep an eye on how many players declare early for the draft, too.


10. Oregon Ducks
Why: Start with a sensational offensive line and add plenty of skill talent and very good coaching.


Why not: Defense will miss Haloti Ngata up front, and quarterbacks Dennis Dixon and Brady Leaf will have to prove they're big-time leaders and playmakers.



OMG UR RIGHT... that is not notre dame at #4 right there... nope that aint them

I Live In Beastmode!
pakowitz is offline  
Latest Blogs
REFUND Last Blog: 12-07-2014 By: xan




Saints: A glimpse of the future Last Blog: 11-19-2014 By: lee909


Old 01-09-2006, 10:55 AM   #32
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Now i've heard it all. Pass on a franchise QB this year, cause we could possibly suck enough to draft one next year? Is this seriously the suggestion?

or if next year we are still horrible we will be in position to take Brady Quinn, who will be the next "can't miss" franchise QB.
Um, what exactly happened to the "big picture?" Didn't you say we need to win now to put butts in the seats and keep our team in NO? How exactly would waiting on Brady Quinn accomplish that? And if the team sucks enough to get him, weren't you suggesting they would be gone? So why would it matter who they drafted at that point? Unreal.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 11:13 AM   #33
500th Post
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by saintswhodi
Now i've heard it all. Pass on a franchise QB this year, cause we could possibly suck enough to draft one next year? Is this seriously the suggestion?

or if next year we are still horrible we will be in position to take Brady Quinn, who will be the next "can't miss" franchise QB.
Um, what exactly happened to the "big picture?" Didn't you say we need to win now to put butts in the seats and keep our team in NO? How exactly would waiting on Brady Quinn accomplish that? And if the team sucks enough to get him, weren't you suggesting they would be gone? So why would it matter who they drafted at that point? Unreal.
Well of course that was based on the assumption that we might be able to snag Reggie Bush. Now it appears we have no shot at him. Come on now give me more credit than that.

Whodi i find it a little startling that you take the stance that just because someone doesn't see eye to eye with you, they are against you. I'm not against drafting Leinart, i'm just more for doing something else that would be more beneficial for the entire team. It's defintely still about the big picture. I think improving the D right away will give us as good a chance to win next year as getting "the franchise QB". Would u agree with that??
GoldenTomb is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 11:46 AM   #34
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,889
RE: Defense !!1

We will only need one out of Collins. If we draft a QB in the second round and with AMAC's potential I don't think we will need much more than that. If we get Volek than he will be good for a while and the other QB's would only be back ups. Kitna could hang in for a couple at least.
UGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! Hmmmmm, quarterback of the future? Or a good linebacker and maybe some extra picks? Not to mention we can get one of those great LBs with the 34th pick.

And about Quinn. That guy sucked until he got Charlie Weiss. It really helps when you have one of the most offensive minded coaches in the country. If he came here, he wouldn't have that kind of resource to build him up. Take Leinart now and enjoy how great it feels to have a franchise quarterback.
TheDeuce is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 11:59 AM   #35
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
I think improving the D right away will give us as good a chance to win next year as getting "the franchise QB". Would u agree with that??
Actually, yes and no. The D improved last year from 32nd in total yards to 15th. The offense dropped to dead last in turnovers, and points given up off turnovers. Inconsistency at the QB position has been a killer for about 5 years now. IMO, you take the franchise QB, and go defense in the second round, where there should be several stud LBs still available. Also, whatever we get for Brooks, go defense again, especially if it's a third rounder. This draft is DEEP for defense, not so for franchise QBs. We could take a stud LB and some mediocre so-so QB down the line, or we take a franchise QB and a stud LB after that. Seems like a better solution to me. I guess it will also depend on what we do in FA. If we get a LB like Peterson from SF in FA, and a good DT, LB should then fall down the list of priorities in the draft for those who are touting LB first. One of those stud second round LBs, plus Peterson and a DT will make out defense all the better. I mean, imagine if our offense DIDN'T lead the league in turnovers, our defense would have been on the field less, given up less points, less yards, less everything. I'll take that.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 12:00 PM   #36
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,762
RE: Defense !!1

If we go defense, we should consider either Hawk OR Ngata. I like Hawk far better, but Ngata could really help us stop the run and there are a lot of quality LBs coming out this year.

If we pick either of those guys we also need to trade down to do it. We really need another day one pick and as great as Hawk is, he's not quite worth #2 overall money.

And I'm frankly envious of D_it_Up2's sig......
BrooksMustGo is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 12:10 PM   #37
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,762
Originally Posted by saintswhodi
Now i've heard it all. Pass on a franchise QB this year, cause we could possibly suck enough to draft one next year? Is this seriously the suggestion?

Um, what exactly happened to the "big picture?" Didn't you say we need to win now to put butts in the seats and keep our team in NO? How exactly would waiting on Brady Quinn accomplish that? And if the team sucks enough to get him, weren't you suggesting they would be gone? So why would it matter who they drafted at that point? Unreal.
Uh, not to put too fine a point on this, but franchise QB's come out every year. And you don't necessarily have to draft them in the top 3. And it doesn't seem that Leinert is a can't miss prospect.

Big Ben went at 10 and seems to be doing just fine.

The larger point is that this team is probably not going to be playoff ready in this division next year no matter who the QB is. We could draft Leinert, Young, Cutler, Jacobs or just start A-Mac and probably still won't be able to climb the rather sizable hill posed by Carolina, Tampa and Atlanta. Starting any rookie is not a great recipe for "winning now". Given that we face 2 defenses known for their speed 4 times next year, isn't that a big strike against Leinert with our weakness at LT? Even if we do take Leinert, having Gandy at LT could make Leinert the new, more fragile and childish David Carr.

Opting for elite defensive players first is a pretty valid draft strategy.

BrooksMustGo is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 12:19 PM   #38
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
There could not be a more false statement than franchise QBs come out every year. Did you see last year's draft? Both of those guys would have been so far behind Leinart as to not be funny.

And it doesn't seem that Leinert is a can't miss prospect.
No prospect is can't miss. But he is regarded as the most NFL ready QB since Peyton. I guess we should just ignore that.

Big Ben went at 10 and seems to be doing just fine.
Actually he went at 11, and to a team with a top flight defense. No matter how many rookie LBs we take, thatain't gonna be us. We are good enough though that if our offense doesn't kill us, we could win.

The larger point is that this team is probably not going to be playoff ready in this division next year no matter who the QB is. We could draft Leinert, Young, Cutler, Jacobs or just start A-Mac and probably still won't be able to climb the rather sizable hill posed by Carolina, Tampa and Atlanta.
But a LB would be different? Okay.

Starting any rookie is not a great recipe for "winning now".
Wouldn't w ebe starting a rookie LB if we took Hawk, and passing on the most NFL ready player in the draft? Again, great idea.

Opting for elite defensive players first is a pretty valid draft strategy.

But opting for an elite QB, which this team has not had since Archie, and which people have CRIED for for years now isn't? I'll just strongly disagree.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 01:07 PM   #39
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,762
WhoDi, please know how much respect I have for you and how much I think you are dead on in regards to the franchise.

I'm really puzzled that we disagree so dramatically on Leinart, which seems to be the heart of where we differ for this off-season.

I will defend my earlier statements on drafting defense first and then move to my take on Leinart.

On Defense:
1. It seems like the adjustment to the pros is easier for some defensive players than it is for QB's. Guys like Tommie Harris, Shawne Merriman and Odell Thurman can come right out and be impact players as rookies. There seems to be a steeper learning curve for QB's.

2. I figure that having either Hawk or Ngata would allow us to instantly be more competative in this division. Hawk is really good at shedding blocks, moving from sideline to sideline and being strong at the point of attack (which has been such a glaring weekness in our LBs). All of the teams we play like to run first. Tampa may change this next season, but for now they like to ride Cadillac. With either Hawk or Ngata we should be much more effective at stopping the run and at least forcing more 3 and outs and giving our offense better field position. A better defense should make things easier for whoever gets started at QB.

3. Carolina and Tampa have elite, fast defenses. Leinart will need to play each of them a few times to really get a feel for the speed of the nfl game. Secondly, with our line the way it is, Leinart is going to take a lot of sacks. I think a defensive player has more of a chance to come in and be an impact player from day one.

On Leinart:
1. I confess, I've fallen into the arm strength trap. Arm strength isn't everything, but I think that to merit being taken at #2 (with SO much guaranteed money) a guy needs to be a complete physical specimen. Leinart doesn't seem to be physically able to make all the throws. I think he's going to be picked off a lot trying to fit the ball in. He is intelligent, which is a big step up from our current QB and he's pretty accurate, which is a big step up too. But I'm not seeing a major difference between accurate and smart with him and accurate and smart with Weurffel, Dorsey and Weinke. I haven't seen anything that separates him from really great college QB's with no arm.

2. I'm not convinced that Leinart is responsible for USC success. He's surrounded by elite talent, including a once in a generation type of player that everyone spends too much time trying to cover. Everyone focuses on Bush and leaves some great WR's too open. Even before Bush became so dominant, he just had more options than most college teams had defenders to deal with.

3. Leinart has not had to play elite competition. The PAC 10 is really weak and they tend to esacpe from a lot of teams out there. For example, I am really convinced that no one in the country could have beaten LSU a couple of years ago. USC and Leinart would have gotten pounded just like Oklahoma did.

4. I don't think Leinart is tough. Leinart rarely gets hit at USC. He will get sacked--a lot--if he comes here. He's not mobile enough to evade guys like Simeon Rice or Julius Peppers and I'm not sure he'll stay injury free or play through injuries here.

5. Leinart is a primadonna. Leinart hired a friggin bodyguard to walk around with him in LA. He seems like the kind of guy that would rather get invited to the oscars than win football games. The flip side of this is that I don't expect him to like south louisiana or our fans and vice versa. This is a gut feeling and I could be wrong. But I get the impression that he figures he's a bit better than us.

6. I fully expect him to pull an Eli on us. The only thing worse than drafting him at #2 overall is having him refuse to sign with us and spend a season without a quality player we could have drafted.

7. He's going to cost us a LOT. With no arm and no mobility, that's a pricey wager on intelligence and accuracy.

8. We have a lot of deep threat receivers. Drafting him means that we give up one of our big advantages.

BrooksMustGo is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 02:25 PM   #40
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
I'm not gonna disagree on the fact we need impact defensive players, I am just not willing to pass up on Leinart for them, especially since this draft is so deep with defense. I also have a few big problems with what you are saying:

6. I fully expect him to pull an Eli on us. The only thing worse than drafting him at #2 overall is having him refuse to sign with us and spend a season without a quality player we could have drafted.
Actually, if he does that, we could trade him. And we'd get a crapload for him. That is the least of my worries.

7. He's going to cost us a LOT. With no arm and no mobility, that's a pricey wager on intelligence and accuracy.
Wow. I guess guys like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are out of style. If that's the case, call me old school. No arm? That's completely false. No mobility? all he has to do is be able to move in the pocket and get his passes off, ala Peyton and Brady. Seems acceptable to me. Intelligence and accuracy, what a turnoff.

8. We have a lot of deep threat receivers. Drafting him means that we give up one of our big advantages.
Again completely false. But Brooks could throw the ball through a barn door, I see how much that helped us deep. Tom Brady RARELY throws deep balls, and he has speedy receivers like Bethel Johnson and David Givens. He prefers, or the team prefers, he hit the receivers in stride and allow them to be able to make plays after they catch. I wonder if our receivers could benefit from that?
saintswhodi is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:42 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2014 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts