2013 NFL Draft - Saints Big Board

[Danno]

Originally Posted by alleycat_126

This time I am not disagreeing with you, because you are right, but let's go back to the beginning of the offseason..... What type of CB..... has your team targeted!!!!.... It seems like your team has jumped on the myth boat, why are you still sitting on the dock!!!!

- Derek Cox 6'0 man up corner
- Keenan Lewis 6'0 man up corner
- Tracy Porter ( needed to generate interest don't think saints were really interested)
-Nnamdi Asomugha 6'2 man up corner

Looks like Rob and Mikey like the Seattle version of the 3-4 a tad bit better than the others you know the one with Brandon Browner 6'4..... Richard Sherman..... 6'3

So you list two 6'0 CB's to counter my statement that CB's are typically 6'0 and under?

[alleycat_126]

Originally Posted by Danno

So you list two 6'0 CB's to counter my statement that CB's are typically 6'0 and under?

No, I didn't try to counter your argument. In fact, I believe I said that you were right. But I did mention a point that you have yet to counter which is that the Saints have only targeted the six foot or better CB this offseason.... Which is to say that they seem to be going the way of the taller CB.... And so I think they need one more 6'0ft or better Man up
corner

- They bought a 6,0ft man up corner (tried to buy 2)
- They have 6'0ft man up corner on staff (I think he wins the slot job)
- Only natural that they may draft a 6'0ft man up corner ( David Amerson??)

[Danno]

Originally Posted by alleycat_126

No, I didn't try to counter your argument. In fact, I believe I said that you were right. But I did mention a point that you have yet to counter which is that the Saints have only targeted the six foot or better CB this offseason.... Which is to say that they seem to be going the way of the taller CB.... And so I think they need one more 6'0ft or better Man up
corner

- They bought a 6,0ft man up corner (tried to buy 2)
- They have 6'0ft man up corner on staff (I think he wins the slot job)
- Only natural that they may draft a 6'0ft man up corner ( David Amerson??)

I never said that, anywhere. Are you referring to someone else?

[alleycat_126]

Originally Posted by Danno

I never said that, anywhere. Are you referring to someone else?

This is what happens when you skim through and don't read the statements fully. You and I have been going back and forth for the past seven statements..... Who else would my words be directed to but you?

For Danno...... cliffnotes of the conversation

Danno- Maybe this should be an offensive draft and fill the defensive problems when we have a better understanding of our weaknesses

Alley- We already know our weaknesses NT, 2 alike SS, need another 6'0ft man up corner

Danno - Rob Ryans defense doesn't require a space eating NT, 6'0ft corners being better is a myth

Alley - If Bunkley works at NT good but if not lets draft NT just in case, Don't disagree with your theory on CB's but your team seems to be targeting tall man up corners in free agency....

Danno - so you list two 6'0ft corners to counter my statement

Alley- No Im saying your statement is correct, but the team seems to be targeting a players that contradict your statement. To this you had no counterpoint......

[Danno]

Originally Posted by alleycat_126

This is what happens when you skim through and don't read the statements fully. You and I have been going back and forth for the past seven statements..... Who else would my words be directed to but you?

For Danno...... cliffnotes of the conversation

Danno- Maybe this should be an offensive draft and fill the defensive problems when we have a better understanding of our weaknesses

Alley- We already know our weaknesses NT, 2 alike SS, need another 6'0ft man up corner

Danno - Rob Ryans defense doesn't require a space eating NT, 6'0ft corners being better is a myth

Alley - If Bunkley works at NT good but if not lets draft NT just in case, Don't disagree with your theory on CB's but your team seems to be targeting tall man up corners in free agency....

Danno - so you list two 6'0ft corners to counter my statement

Alley- No Im saying your statement is correct, but the team seems to be targeting a players that contradict your statement. To this you had no counterpoint......

You have problems comprehending simple english. Try again. Here, I'll lay it out for you exactly as I typed it...

Danno: CB's are typically 6-0 and under. Most of the greatest CB's of all time are around 5-10 or 5-11. Its a myth that you need tall CB's to compete today. Most 5-11 CB's have a freaking vertical nearly 1/2 foot higher than most of these tall WR/TE's playing today.

Now how in the world did you get "6'0ft corners being better is a myth"? out of my statement?

[alleycat_126]

Originally Posted by Danno

Danno: CB's are typically 6-0 and under. Most of the greatest CB's of all time are around 5-10 or 5-11. Its a myth that you need tall CB's to compete today. Most 5-11 CB's have a freaking vertical nearly 1/2 foot higher than most of these tall WR/TE's playing today.

Now how in the world did you get "6'0ft corners being better is a myth"? out of my statement?

Do you know what a cliffnote is? It means I am giving you a broken down version of your wordy thought. You said tomatoes, I said To - ma - toes.... We still said the exact same thing. You still haven't addressed my point about the team targeting taller corners!!!! your just shucking and jiving around it knitpickng typing and sentence structure and word play......

Here's how I got that out of what you said. Two statements " CB's are typically 6-0 and under.>>>>>>> Most of the great CB's are 5-10 or 5-11 <<<< if your not saying that smaller CBs are better why is this statement even needed!!!! IT'S A MYTH THAT YOU NEED TALL CB'S TO COMPETE TODAY

in other words 6'0 ft corners being better than smaller corners is a myth!!!!

[Danno]

Originally Posted by alleycat_126

Do you know what a cliffnote is? It means I am giving you a broken down version of your wordy thought. You said tomatoes, I said To - ma - toes.... We still said the exact same thing. You still haven't addressed my point about the team targeting taller corners!!!! your just shucking and jiving around it knitpickng typing and sentence structure and word play......

Here's how I got that out of what you said. Two statements " CB's are typically 6-0 and under.>>>>>>> Most of the great CB's are 5-10 or 5-11 <<<< if your not saying that smaller CBs are better why is this statement even needed!!!! IT'S A MYTH THAT YOU NEED TALL CB'S TO COMPETE TODAY

in other words 6'0 ft corners being better than smaller corners is a myth!!!!

Wow, just wow. I give up. You are incapable of comprehending simple english.

[saintfan]

[SaintsBro]

So, let me see if I have this straight...the team is targeting a series of exactly precisely 6'0" corners this off season, in order to foster arguments on message boards about corners "typically" being either 6'0" or less, or else being 6'0" and above....wow, I think I see it now -- Loomis and Payton are crazy like a fox -- by ONLY picking 6'0" corners, they are keeping everyone guessing, as to whether their strategy is going to be going after tall corners above 6'0", or short corners below 6'0"....and yet, HAHA, the Saints are targeting ONLY EXACTLY 6'0" corners, keeping EVERYONE guessing, so that the fans and also other teams don't know which philosophy they are using....wow, I think I really understand this argument now.

[alleycat_126]

Originally Posted by Danno

Wow, just wow. I give up. You are incapable of comprehending simple english.

I explained how I got what I got out of your statements and this is what I get back..... seriously.

Ok, you tell me what I should have comprehended from your statement. You garner a great deal of respect here, but don't expect me to cowher to you because your post count is high, or because you sling insults to avoid explanations...... I'll keep my feelings out of the post, I expect you being the senior poster to do the same.

- What should I have comprehended from your statements?