Mangold

zachsaints52 · 04-20-2006, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

I want Brick at number 2 or whereever, and then at 34 Mangold.

Euphoria I was all for Brick also, until Brown switched to LT. Now I don't see a reason to use a Top 5 pick on a RT. Now, if someone tells me that Browns stays at RT,I am still game for Brick........so?

JimBone · 04-20-2006, 09:31 PM

Like i have said before, it would bother me if the saints only had two first day picks. Reason being, it is reasonable to say that we could walk away from the draft saturday night and say we got Ferguson and Mangold. Two lineman. Now, while no one can say we dont need them, because we do, but once again, no playmakers in the draft when the opportunity is sitting there. Now our line would be shored up for the next umteen years, and thats fine. But i sure would like some sizzle added to the draft, be it with extra picks or with playmakers. I have a gut feeling that the Saints draft goes Ferguson in round 1 and D'Qwell Jackson in round 2. Just a hunch.

pakowitz · 04-20-2006, 09:32 PM

i know whodi im just sayin that alot of people still want brick at 2 not hawk at 2

SuJaguar00 · 04-20-2006, 09:35 PM

Hawk, Mangold and Jennings would be a great thing.
If we trade the 2nd overall pick, which I think will happen, here's how I see our first selections going.

#4 - A.J. Hawk - A consensus top five pick that will start, day one.
#29 - Nick Mangold - Fills a huge void and is a good value @ 29 which is rare for a center
#34 - Antonio Cromartie - some concerns over his health could see him slip from the first round and would be the steal of the draft
#67 - Gabe Watson - His lack of consistency and conditioning has caused him to slip from a second round choice into the third,

saintswhodi · 04-21-2006, 08:35 AM

I would puke if we took Gabe Watson in any round. Sully v2.0. No thanks.

JKool · 04-21-2006, 11:21 AM

D'Brick, Mangold, and Brown. We'd have one of the best OLs going for the next decade. It is hard for me to not be excited about that idea. Flash? I'm old enough to not care about that anymore. We've got Deuce, Brees, Horn, Stallworth, Hilton, not to mention Grant, W. Smith, D. Smith, and McKenzie - that's plenty of guys who can give us some flash. We need grinders, not flashers ...

Euphoria · 04-21-2006, 11:28 AM

I so agree we need the grinders up front to just overpower and run over people to free up our backs so they can run wild.

saintswhodi · 04-21-2006, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by JKool

D'Brick, Mangold, and Brown. We'd have one of the best OLs going for the next decade. It is hard for me to not be excited about that idea. Flash? I'm old enough to not care about that anymore. We've got Deuce, Brees, Horn, Stallworth, Hilton, not to mention Grant, W. Smith, D. Smith, and McKenzie - that's plenty of guys who can give us some flash. We need grinders, not flashers ...

I think this is one of the worst options we could have, on so many levels. First, with our first two picks, we eschew defense? I couldn't disagree more with that. Second, which one do we let go in 4-5 years, cause there is NO WAY we are keeping three stud O-linemen. Matter of fact, name me a team that has three stud O-lineman. Noone does. I've said it before, i'll say it again, blocking is about schemes, not simply the best talent available. How many "studs" does NE have on their line? Pittsburgh? Seattle? Denver? You don't win by tying all your money up in O-line. Seattle didn't get over the hump until they got a stud MLB like Lofa Tatupu to lead that defense. They've had Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson for a while now. Three, what is wrong with Brown, Mayberry, Sticnh and Holland and whoever else they start at G, or pick up at LT in the second round? I don't see that as so terrible, especially with blokcing being about schemes. I'm just saying, i'd probably puke if we went O-line with our first two picks and completely pushed all this defensive talent in the draft to the side. If we take Brick, fine, but then no way I follow that with Mangold. No way, no how.

BrooksMustGo · 04-21-2006, 11:44 AM

We need grinders, not flashers

I suppose it depends on who is doing the flashing?

If not Mangold, I'd like Chris Chester G/C or maybe even Davin Joseph G if he lasted into round 2.

JKool · 04-21-2006, 06:31 PM

You couldn't disagree more? Come now, Whodi, you know you could.

You make it sound like any ol' set of pylons could make up a great OL. It isn't like receiving is just about running good routes; in the same way, blocking isn't just about the scheme. Of course, scheme may be a very bit factor in a successful line, but I'm just going to have to go ahead and disagree with you that it is "all about scheme." There is a reason that many OLmen don't cut it in the NFL.

I agree that perhaps I'm being a bit o'er hasty about not taking any defensive players with the first two picks, but after Hawk, none of the defenders are really doing it for me. Further, wasn't it you who pointed out that our LB corps got a huge upgrade by merely getting new coaches? I'm inclined to agree with that. If Fugita and Simmons can play, and one of Watson, Bockwoldt, or Fincher decide it is time to stop sucking - I say major improvement. The D-backs we have I can live with, and that leaves only DT suffering ever so badly. I guess, I don't know what to say about that one, but I don't see that 2 OLmen with the first two picks is a bad idea at all (though I concede that your point about keeping all of them beyond their rookie contracts may be tough).

04-20-2006, 09:28 PM	#11
zachsaints52 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Abingdon, Virginia Posts: 522	Originally Posted by Euphoria I want Brick at number 2 or whereever, and then at 34 Mangold. Euphoria I was all for Brick also, until Brown switched to LT. Now I don't see a reason to use a Top 5 pick on a RT. Now, if someone tells me that Browns stays at RT,I am still game for Brick........so?

04-20-2006, 09:35 PM	#14
SuJaguar00 Rookie Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25	Hawk, Mangold and Jennings would be a great thing. If we trade the 2nd overall pick, which I think will happen, here's how I see our first selections going. #4 - A.J. Hawk - A consensus top five pick that will start, day one. #29 - Nick Mangold - Fills a huge void and is a good value @ 29 which is rare for a center #34 - Antonio Cromartie - some concerns over his health could see him slip from the first round and would be the steal of the draft #67 - Gabe Watson - His lack of consistency and conditioning has caused him to slip from a second round choice into the third,
SuJaguar00 Rookie Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25

04-21-2006, 11:39 AM	#18
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Originally Posted by JKool D'Brick, Mangold, and Brown. We'd have one of the best OLs going for the next decade. It is hard for me to not be excited about that idea. Flash? I'm old enough to not care about that anymore. We've got Deuce, Brees, Horn, Stallworth, Hilton, not to mention Grant, W. Smith, D. Smith, and McKenzie - that's plenty of guys who can give us some flash. We need grinders, not flashers ... I think this is one of the worst options we could have, on so many levels. First, with our first two picks, we eschew defense? I couldn't disagree more with that. Second, which one do we let go in 4-5 years, cause there is NO WAY we are keeping three stud O-linemen. Matter of fact, name me a team that has three stud O-lineman. Noone does. I've said it before, i'll say it again, blocking is about schemes, not simply the best talent available. How many "studs" does NE have on their line? Pittsburgh? Seattle? Denver? You don't win by tying all your money up in O-line. Seattle didn't get over the hump until they got a stud MLB like Lofa Tatupu to lead that defense. They've had Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson for a while now. Three, what is wrong with Brown, Mayberry, Sticnh and Holland and whoever else they start at G, or pick up at LT in the second round? I don't see that as so terrible, especially with blokcing being about schemes. I'm just saying, i'd probably puke if we went O-line with our first two picks and completely pushed all this defensive talent in the draft to the side. If we take Brick, fine, but then no way I follow that with Mangold. No way, no how.

04-21-2006, 06:31 PM	#20
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	You couldn't disagree more? Come now, Whodi, you know you could. You make it sound like any ol' set of pylons could make up a great OL. It isn't like receiving is just about running good routes; in the same way, blocking isn't just about the scheme. Of course, scheme may be a very bit factor in a successful line, but I'm just going to have to go ahead and disagree with you that it is "all about scheme." There is a reason that many OLmen don't cut it in the NFL. I agree that perhaps I'm being a bit o'er hasty about not taking any defensive players with the first two picks, but after Hawk, none of the defenders are really doing it for me. Further, wasn't it you who pointed out that our LB corps got a huge upgrade by merely getting new coaches? I'm inclined to agree with that. If Fugita and Simmons can play, and one of Watson, Bockwoldt, or Fincher decide it is time to stop sucking - I say major improvement. The D-backs we have I can live with, and that leaves only DT suffering ever so badly. I guess, I don't know what to say about that one, but I don't see that 2 OLmen with the first two picks is a bad idea at all (though I concede that your point about keeping all of them beyond their rookie contracts may be tough).
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

04-20-2006, 09:31 PM	#12
JimBone 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Thibodaux, La Posts: 614	Like i have said before, it would bother me if the saints only had two first day picks. Reason being, it is reasonable to say that we could walk away from the draft saturday night and say we got Ferguson and Mangold. Two lineman. Now, while no one can say we dont need them, because we do, but once again, no playmakers in the draft when the opportunity is sitting there. Now our line would be shored up for the next umteen years, and thats fine. But i sure would like some sizzle added to the draft, be it with extra picks or with playmakers. I have a gut feeling that the Saints draft goes Ferguson in round 1 and D'Qwell Jackson in round 2. Just a hunch.

04-20-2006, 09:32 PM	#13
pakowitz The Dark Overlord Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,450	i know whodi im just sayin that alot of people still want brick at 2 not hawk at 2

04-21-2006, 08:35 AM	#15
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	I would puke if we took Gabe Watson in any round. Sully v2.0. No thanks.

04-21-2006, 11:21 AM	#16
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	D'Brick, Mangold, and Brown. We'd have one of the best OLs going for the next decade. It is hard for me to not be excited about that idea. Flash? I'm old enough to not care about that anymore. We've got Deuce, Brees, Horn, Stallworth, Hilton, not to mention Grant, W. Smith, D. Smith, and McKenzie - that's plenty of guys who can give us some flash. We need grinders, not flashers ...

04-21-2006, 11:28 AM	#17
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	I so agree we need the grinders up front to just overpower and run over people to free up our backs so they can run wild.

04-21-2006, 11:44 AM	#19
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	We need grinders, not flashers I suppose it depends on who is doing the flashing? If not Mangold, I'd like Chris Chester G/C or maybe even Davin Joseph G if he lasted into round 2.