saintswhodi

Then I will continue to strongly disagree, and leave it at that. Nothing in your argument Kool made me feel as if it is a good idea to take linemen with our first two picks. You say since we feel Brees will make our O-line better, won't coaching make our D better? Well one, Brees is actually on the field to make the offense better. If we had these coaches, and Aaron Brooks still at QB, I would still have no faith in Brooks. By the same token, coaching alone won't help our D, we need players as well. At LB and DT mainly. There is no argument you could make that won't have me thinking we are still gonna get gashed by opposing offenses without adding a stud defender from the draft to our D. I just can not see it. There is not an argument out there that will make me think taking two o-linemen with out first two picks is a good idea. Not one. Sorry bro. Just differences of opinion here.

papz

Starting two rookies on our front line with a 1st year starting left tackle in Jammal Brown sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. And remember, Brees is coming off shoulder surgery. If we're expecting to win around here anytime soon and not 2-3 years from now, then that's not a bad plan. But with the acquisition of a high profiled qb, I don't think we're in the rebuilding stage.

Jim Bone... nothings wrong with Leinart and Mangold. I still have us selecting Leinart as our first pick in the draft and wouldn't mind seeing Mangold here either. I'd rather take a corner or linebacker with our 2nd round pick though and select a center in the 4th.

hagan714

I would not put Mangold in as starter right way no matter what. Alot of playing time but not a starter. As captin of the OL he has alot to learn.
Matt is a skip at 2. I throw out draft value rankings here. I would not be surpised if the draft went Bush, Williams, DBrick, AJ, Davis, Huff, then Matt to Oakland at 7. Even with trades.

JKool

I'm sorry to hear that. I thought the discussion was interesting; however, given that you say the following, I guess you're right that we should drop it:
No point in discussing, then, I suppose.

Coaching alone will help our D. I think you'll agree given your earlier argument that we received an upgrade at LB when we changed our coaching staff. What you mean, I guess, is that we didn't receive enough of an upgrade in this way. I agree that Brees being on the field helps, but it is his leadership that helps - not mere (only) his raw physical assets. If that is the case, then I don't see why it is so implausible that leadership (wherever it comes from) could help our defense without a personnel change at all - an argument I believe you agree with.

Is it your contention that our Defense is an uncoachable and unimprovable as you believed Brooks to be? I'm guessing that is what you are after here: I am guessing, however, that you don't think that. It follows then that some improvement of our defensive middle will occur without changing any players. You do grant that, right?

The sort of claim I have in mind is this: a luxury pick with our 2nd round selection at OL is ok with me (not ideal, but ok). Is it really your view that not selecting a defensive player in the first or second round would make our draft a disaster? Would it be just bad, or a disaster? I guess, my idea is that it would be ok so long as defense is properly addressed at some point? I'm pretty sure that if we spend our first rounder on a DE or a TE, I'll go ape-shiznit.

Papz, players like D'Brick and Mangold are going to be able to start and perform well in thier first season (otherwise I'd be inclined to agree with you). These are guys like Hawk, Bush, or Williams who will all start on day one and be fine. I think the question is this: even without experience, don't you think that these two would be upgrades over the players we do have at those positions? I guess, as of now, I do.

As a final note, I don't see that we couldn't drop down a spot or two and still get D'Brick and Mangold and have an extra second or third rounder with which to take a defender. Thus, I guess, it should at least depend on how we get D'Brick and Mangold that would raise the ire of Saints fans (not merely that we did).

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

JKool

Hagan, that is an interesting point.

I think though that while it is a problem to have a different player call the blocking schemes, it could be done (for example Holland or Mayberry at G could do so). Also, Mangold is notably intelligent as I recall - surely he could manage. Further, the schemes could be adapted to require less man to man blocking, which would reduce the need for the C to call as much at the line.

Either way, in then end my arguments weren't FOR taking D'Brick and Mangold 1 and 2, they were intended to show that such a scenario isn't a disaster (that is the point Whodi was taking me to task on).

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

hagan714

Mayberry could do it i agree. Holland is still learning. I hope it all clicks for him this year.
AJ anywhere in the top 5 as long as he is saint. He will be our WLB for years to come then Jackson/ Hodge.
Mixing the picks for each side of the ball is the safe bet but with draft being the year of the LB I can stay with it in the first 2 rounds. Next 2 (if we trade and get a third) has good Offensive picks the last 3 you got good players to upgrade the depth on both sides of the ball.

"We may have lost the game, but you'll be hurting tomorrow." Doug Atkins

Euphoria

If you have a chance to draft the number one player in there position such as Brick and the number one center on a OL that sucked last year YOU DO IT... We have to protect better and we have to protect brees... he wasn't that good without a line in SD and the better the line the better Deuce will be. Its easier for an OL to make the transition to the pros than a QB. Linemen can come in and start.

saintswhodi

Sure, that's why can't miss Gallery STILL isn't playing LT in Oakland. That's why Jordan Gross is playing RT for the Panthers. Yeah, it's easier.

LBs who made an immediate impact coming out recently-Vilma, DJ Williams, Odell Thurman, Lofa Tatupu, Karlos Dansby, Derrick Johnson.

Glad you said that, that would be AJ Hawk.

saintswhodi

JKool:
It would be a bad disaster IMO. I like Simmons, but he is injury prone. I like Fujita, but he is solid at best, which is better than what we had, but isn't knocking anyone's socks off. Either goes down, we are back to Colby, Allen or Watson, and just one of the new guys. If we can go defense with the rest of our picks should we gain extra ones, why can't we do that for O-line? Like papz said though, I am not too keen on starting a bunch of rookie O-linemen anyway. One, sure. Go for it. But two rookies and Jamaal having his first year on the left? Uh uh. We could get Whitworth in the late 2nd or 3rd with an extra pick, and he can play RT just fine. So we could go Hawk, Bunkley, Ngata or Huff, then Mangold Whitworth. I'd be fine with that. My whole problem is if WE DON'T OR CAN'T trade down, and we go O-line, O-line back to back. We would be waiting until the 4th round to try and address defense? Disastrous in my mind. I know you wanna try to convince me, but I am 100% certain there is no way to make me think that if we don't trade down, taking offenisve linemen with our top two picks is a good idea. Uh uh, that would be terrible in my mind.

JKool

Whodi:

I enjoyed that.

Ok, I got it. There is no argument that can move you.

This whole stuff about rookie starters isn't flying with me. I agree with skill positions, other than RB and OLB, rookie starters are shakey; however, in the trenches rookie starters aren't all that rare nor that bad. Rookie starters on our OL is no worse than brining in free agents, since much of the success of an OL has to do with experience playing together. It is my view that shaking up the OL is as much of a problem or more than inexperience.

I guess, Whodi, you were right, and we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks