Archuleta and Harper?

papz · 05-07-2008, 01:30 PM

You are preaching to the choir... at least about the pressure. Bullocks on the otherhand, minds of many have already been set.

Papa Voodoo · 05-07-2008, 02:08 PM

Bullocks isn't a playmaker. Bellamy was, Knight was, even Willie Clay was. Bob Sanders or Ronnie Lot could play in the weakest secondary ever and still make plays. Bullocks never shows up just like Simoneau. I'd rather a slow safety that's always around the ball making plays than a fast guy that's never around. Dwight Smith as better IMO than Bullocks.

JKool · 05-07-2008, 02:38 PM

Bullocks has been about the same (statistically) his whole stay here.

. G GS Tkl Solo Ast Sck PDef Int
2007 New Orleans Saints 14 14 77 65 12 1.0 8 2
2006 New Orleans Saints 16 16 71 56 15 0.0 5 2
2005 New Orleans Saints 16 13 67 53 14 0.0 5 1

Josh Bullocks

If he was good enough to play in a secondary that made it to the conference final (and he was), then he's good enough to play in a secondary that can take us to a conference final.

I agree that he isn't a play maker. I just think "he sucks" is way too strong. He may not be good, and he is certainly not great, but "sucks", really?

I am certainly pro getting an upgrade at Safety, but I don't think that is as simple as replacing Bullocks with "whoever".

Papa Voodoo · 05-07-2008, 04:15 PM

I'd like to see Archuleta competing with Bullocks and KK. If Bullocks wins out then fine by me.

JKool · 05-07-2008, 04:25 PM

That seems like a pretty sane stance. I'd like to see them bring in someone I thought was good already, then I wouldn't feel like they would have to grow on me.

I'm not really sold on Archuleta, but I'm certainly sold on the idea of some competition. Isn't this why we had like 10 Safeties on the roster at the beggining of training camp last year?

pakowitz · 05-07-2008, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by JKool

If he was good enough to play in a secondary that made it to the conference final (and he was), then he's good enough to play in a secondary that can take us to a conference final.

I agree that he isn't a play maker. I just think "he sucks" is way too strong. He may not be good, and he is certainly not great, but "sucks", really?

he was playin in the sec. when we went to the conf. finals but he was also part of the reason we didnt win that game.. we got burn deep plenty of times that game and bullocks was always out of position.. frankly im tired of seeing him blow coverages.. he sucks..

JKool · 05-07-2008, 06:36 PM

He's also part of the reason we made it to that game (i.e. he was a contributing member of our defense that year).

I doubt that he was always out of position. (And before anyone suggests I didn't see the game, I did).

Statistically speaking Bullocks is about where most of the second rate starters in the NFL are. Of course, we could get better, but we could get a lot worse.

I'm starting to think that I just don't understand what people mean when they say "sucks." I'm really coming to believe that means "I don't like so and so, and we could have a better player than so and so" - not much content there.

I can certainly get on board with upgrading that position, but I think we could do much worse than what we have. Was the secondary really that much better the two games KK started (I'm actually just asking that - it isn't rhetorical)? If someone decides to answer that, I'm not going to be swayed by your opinion - I'd like something a little more concrete.

05-07-2008, 01:30 PM	#11
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,686	Re: Archuleta and Harper? You are preaching to the choir... at least about the pressure. Bullocks on the otherhand, minds of many have already been set.
	Last edited by papz; 05-07-2008 at 01:32 PM..

05-07-2008, 02:08 PM	#12
Papa Voodoo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,628	Re: Archuleta and Harper? Bullocks isn't a playmaker. Bellamy was, Knight was, even Willie Clay was. Bob Sanders or Ronnie Lot could play in the weakest secondary ever and still make plays. Bullocks never shows up just like Simoneau. I'd rather a slow safety that's always around the ball making plays than a fast guy that's never around. Dwight Smith as better IMO than Bullocks.

05-07-2008, 02:38 PM	#13
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Re: Archuleta and Harper? Bullocks has been about the same (statistically) his whole stay here. . G GS Tkl Solo Ast Sck PDef Int 2007 New Orleans Saints 14 14 77 65 12 1.0 8 2 2006 New Orleans Saints 16 16 71 56 15 0.0 5 2 2005 New Orleans Saints 16 13 67 53 14 0.0 5 1 Josh Bullocks If he was good enough to play in a secondary that made it to the conference final (and he was), then he's good enough to play in a secondary that can take us to a conference final. I agree that he isn't a play maker. I just think "he sucks" is way too strong. He may not be good, and he is certainly not great, but "sucks", really? I am certainly pro getting an upgrade at Safety, but I don't think that is as simple as replacing Bullocks with "whoever".
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

05-07-2008, 04:15 PM	#14
Papa Voodoo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,628	Re: Archuleta and Harper? I'd like to see Archuleta competing with Bullocks and KK. If Bullocks wins out then fine by me.
	Last edited by Papa Voodoo; 05-07-2008 at 04:18 PM..

05-07-2008, 04:25 PM	#15
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Re: Archuleta and Harper? That seems like a pretty sane stance. I'd like to see them bring in someone I thought was good already, then I wouldn't feel like they would have to grow on me. I'm not really sold on Archuleta, but I'm certainly sold on the idea of some competition. Isn't this why we had like 10 Safeties on the roster at the beggining of training camp last year?

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

05-07-2008, 04:58 PM	#16
pakowitz The Dark Overlord Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,450	Re: Archuleta and Harper? Originally Posted by JKool If he was good enough to play in a secondary that made it to the conference final (and he was), then he's good enough to play in a secondary that can take us to a conference final. I agree that he isn't a play maker. I just think "he sucks" is way too strong. He may not be good, and he is certainly not great, but "sucks", really? he was playin in the sec. when we went to the conf. finals but he was also part of the reason we didnt win that game.. we got burn deep plenty of times that game and bullocks was always out of position.. frankly im tired of seeing him blow coverages.. he sucks..

05-07-2008, 06:36 PM	#17
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Re: Archuleta and Harper? He's also part of the reason we made it to that game (i.e. he was a contributing member of our defense that year). I doubt that he was always out of position. (And before anyone suggests I didn't see the game, I did). Statistically speaking Bullocks is about where most of the second rate starters in the NFL are. Of course, we could get better, but we could get a lot worse. I'm starting to think that I just don't understand what people mean when they say "sucks." I'm really coming to believe that means "I don't like so and so, and we could have a better player than so and so" - not much content there. I can certainly get on board with upgrading that position, but I think we could do much worse than what we have. Was the secondary really that much better the two games KK started (I'm actually just asking that - it isn't rhetorical)? If someone decides to answer that, I'm not going to be swayed by your opinion - I'd like something a little more concrete.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks