Grabowski's
 

All this talk about taking players with character over guys with football measurables is reminding me a lot of our '97 draft under nutcase Ditka. He said he wanted a team full of hardworking guys - his Grabowski's. Why is this draft, other than Bush, under Payton any different?

1997 Draft
1 (10, 10) - Chris Naeole, Colorado
2 (3, 33) - Rob Kelly, Ohio State
2 (9, 39) - Jared Tomich, Nebraska
3 (2, 62) - Troy Davis, Iowa State
4 (3, 99) - Danny Wuerffel, Florida
4 (20, 116) - Keith Poole, Arizona State
6 (2, 165) - Nicky Savoie, Louisiana State

RE: Grabowski
 

I'm glad you mentioned this. I was thinking the same thing Sunday afternoon. It really reminded me of Ditka's first draft. I recall the TP talking about how the draft class might win good citizenship awards, but weren't the best football players.

I'm hoping that what Payton was drafting was guys who are dilligent workers and football smart, not just guys who avoid trouble with Johnny Law. I'm being optimistic here.

RE: Grabowski
 

Was pointing this out all weekend...

....difference, of course, Ditka thought he was going to will the team into winning just because he was Mike Ditka, and that opposite teams were just going to surrender because they were going against Mike Ditka, to hell with the playbook and actually coaching the team.

There were a lot of guys who were decent players and would've made a difference and been good role players had they not landed with the Saints during the Ditka years. Ditka ruined a lot of careers during his 3 year disaster.

Don't compare the situations. They are not even close. Payton is a young coach who's looking to make a name for himself in the NFL, while Ditka both flaunting his HoF credentials and riding the wave that Buddy Ryan's 46 defense created a decade earlier.

Also, We had Billy Joe Everyone at QB, and a poor*** team. I like this year's team except the D. WE NEED SOME DEFENSE!!!!!!

Jared Tomich = Nankovich?
Keith Poole = Mike Haas?
Roman Harper = Rob Kelly?

Some of the comments made regarding why we'd take some of these guys over more talented players reminds me too much of '97 and makes me a little nervous.

Well, then...
By that logic, if they go and get more talented athletes like Haslett did, they are screwed too, because that didn't work either, right?
So why bother either way, right?

It's 2 very different coaching staffs, 2 very different situations.
.

Explain how these are "very different situations" cause I'm obviously not the only one that sees this.

Haslett was NOT bringing in more talented athletes.

My "logic" is why are we passing up talented, highly rated players at posistions we need, like, oh, I don't know, middle linebacker, defensive tackle, and right tackle for the hard working class president safety?

Think we're going to the Super Bowl with Boy Scout Troop 375?

I never noticed that but now that I think about it....I feel that character is slightly more important. I don't think that Payton is solely drafting guys with nothing but character. If thats the case he might as well draft me cause I would give my arm to help the Saints win a championship. But lets face it....how many totally awesome players do we know of that simply don't produce as much as they should because they don't give it there all? Look at the niners of the 80's. Montana.....not spectacular physically but a hard ass worker. Rice....do I have to explain that? Even Lott....not the biggest safety but worked his ass off to destroy recievers. Hell lets leave the niners for a second....WAYNE CHREBET. Need I say more?!?!?!? Short, undersized, not too fast...probably the best reciever the Jets had at one point. I think high-character, hard-working players DO make a difference. Wait....weren't we all pissed at a certain QB for not having high character?!?!?!? (Of course all the fumbling didn't help either...lol)

I'm not saying that character isn't important, don't get me wrong. I just don't think that all the talented guys we left on the board in the 2nd and 4th rd were law breaking, weak minded, lazy players. Afterall, they had to do something right to be so productive in college and have so many other teams think highly of them.

I have to disagree with your examples of Rice and Lott. Yes, they were extremely driven hardworking guys, but they also came with a LOT of talent.

I did explain it, but here it is again, since you missed it...

Quoting myself:

I thought of the comparison too, but then i thought...to be a good O-lineman...you have to be smart, be in position, and not commit penalties. Check that one off on Strief. To play safety, you have to find the ball, not be out of position, read the offense, and most importantly, make the tackle...that is what Roman Harper does. To play WR, you have to find the chains, run a good route, and catch the balls in your direction...that is what Hass does. I sum this draft up in that these are the role players...the guys who do the little things and know what they are here for. Not the super athletes that every play has to be about them. Guys that know football, want to play football, and want to win.

So, your answer is to speculate that the Grabowski's we picked Saturday will be better coached than the Grabowski's Ditka picked.

I remember the same things being said about Jared Tomich that are being said about Nankovich. Poole and Haas. Kelly to a degree and Harper.

...oh I am NOT speculating. They WILL be better coached. Do you think I'm speculating?
Was Payton wearing a Hawaiian shirt, smoking a cigar, and had tee times on Saturday and Sunday? I missed that.

You can find the same ting said about players coming out of the draft year after year after year. You can find the same things said about Tomich said about players in Tomich's draft, before Tomich draft, and after. So if it sounds familiar, it is because you've heard and read the same things about 100's of players throughout the years. There's always "the next ______", "the reach", "the future HoF'er/probowler", "the most likely to be a bust", "the physical talent". "the football talent"... we just choose to be fooled every year into thinking that it is all new this year and that this year really matters what they say, just like we fool ourselves into thinking that, because so and so was picked and that posistion sucked last year, that magically the "hole was plugged", without a single down of football played.

All in all, I believe Payton and his coaching staff are going to do well with what they inherited and what they got in this draft, and I believe that' coaching is where the real difference is going to come from. not to mention that they've brought a new QB who understands what the position entails, 2 experienced LB's, and an experienced center to replace the one who bolted and didn't want to return.

I agree we'll be a better coached team. I don't particularly like something I'm seeing in that we're willing to get rid of one of our more productive defensive players in years (D. Smith) because of some supposed character problem that none of us have seen in him, or heard about in the media.

When we start passing up talented young players at posistions of need, while using a valuable pick on one of our LEAST posistions of need and it's not cause the guy's a phenomenal player (Bush), but it's more about his character that raises a red flag to me.

Great coaching can only make so much out of a player. Great coaching added to great talent wins championships. All the other teams in our division have been to the Super Bowl in the last few years. I'm sure some of them weren't the best character guys - Dwight Smith was on one of those teams as you know.

... so was Brad Johnson... Talent != performance.

Besides, you are assuming that they are "getting rid" of D. Smith. I don't remember Loomis or Payton or Mueller saying anything about that or at least I have not heard it. Everything I have read-heard has been speculation. And even if they do trade him (which is not the same as "getting rid" of him), after 5 years of the Barnum and Bailey Circus, I'm more than willing to wait and see what they actually do/get for him, and what kind of team they field.

One more thing: this team needs character much more than they need talent, more than any team in the league -well, Minnesota is debatable- after everything that has happened the last two years. It is more than just bringing in boy scouts who are not going to get in trouble. This team has talent, not at every position, obviusly (but who has it?) but if you look at the players on the roster you see there is quite a bit of talented individuals and a few over achievers there.

.. and, speaking of teams in our division that have gone to the SB, there is one Jake Delhomme, who definitely lacks the physical talent of 90% of the QB's in the NFL, yet, 3 years ago, he came that close to being SB MVP and wininng it, brought his team back to almost reach the playoffs 2 years ago even though the team was decimated with injuries, and returned to the NFC Championship last year.

Never underestimate character.

just thought it was apropos, concerning Chris Henry being investigated for another incident-

The reality is that the Bengals never should have drafted this guy. Several teams had him off of their boards in April 2005, but yet the Bengals took him in the third round.

Similar concerns have been raised this year by league insiders regarding the decision of the Bengals to select defensive end Frostee Rucker in round three and linebacker A. J. Nicholson in round five -- and by the signing of free-agent fullback Fahu Tahi after the draft.

At a time when character matters more than ever in the NFL, we can't understand what the Bengals are doing. And we think it's only a matter of time before the shrinking nucleus of quality individuals in the locker room start looking for a way out.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm