saintswhodi

If it\'s strictly offense, after the tackles we all know what position I am fixing. Conwell was hurt last year and Boo was much better in the old offense. I think changing the offense had something to do with his play as well as the whoel team\'s actually. If we go back to the offense that had us ranked in the top half of the league consistently, then tackles then QB, strictly on offense though. Overall, I am going LB, T, DT, QB, CB. First 3 I think we can address in free agency. Really don\'t want a rookie tackle. Looks like Leon is our guy next year no matter what, so if the first 3 are addressed in free agency, get Smith, let him learn a year or beat AB outright, and get him in there next year if ready, year after if not. But then I wonder, do I want a qb learning from AB and these coaches? Catch 22.

saintfan

My question would be, how do we determin what is a \"Bad\" throw or maybe how do we determin what is a catchable pass? Tom Landry once said, \"If you can touch it, you can catch it.\" I don\'t know if I\'d go THAT far, but I\'d scare the hell outta that hole! LOL

Danno

I posted this already but it got crickets.
WhoDat you\'re right. This team\'s offense was down this year to about mid-pack. Over the last few years it may have underachieved but still finished upper 1/3. But good grief, the defense flirted with finishing the worst in the history of the league, and has gotten worse over the last 3 years..

Why the offensive problems are dominating the discussions is both confusing, frustrating, and tiresome. Nine out of ten posts should be targeting the real problems with this team. And the most severe problems don\'t play offense or QB.

Maybe its the mentality that a team\'s success or failure is tied directly to the QB. I feel most of the posters here are smarter than that.

saintswhodi

Missing the point Danno. The discussion was placed as strictly on offense. EVERYONE knows the defensive problems, and we have beat that into the ground too. Here\'s a rundown: Fire Venturi, cut Sullivan, move up and draft Rolle, move up and draft Johnson, take Thomas Davis, take Channing Crowder, get Hartwell in free agency, get Seth Payne, get Fred Smoot sign and trade Howard. Noone is ignoring the defense, IN THIS DISCUSSION we are not talking about it. Ya dig?

Rsanders24

There is no way that this would happen. Rolle, Johnson, Crowder, and maybe even Davis all will be drafted in the 1st. round. This remind me of an offseason on Madden. I mean be totally honest, do you really think that a) Rolle or Jonhson will be there when we pick? No. b) the price to receive a pick that high will be too steep concidering all of the problem that we have on both side on the ball and even if we were to trade Brooks or Howard we would not get a pick that high without giving up many more picks and we have never made a big splash in the FA pool. So unless their stock drops at the combine in which they may choose not to participate we better start thinking realistically!

saintswhodi

RSanders, maybe you missed these 2 statements:

We are at 16. It appears Rolle or Johnson may not go top 10 based on team needs at the top. Rolle is more likely to fall than Johnson at any rate. Dallas is at 11, doesn;t want to take a corner(Parcells said so) so moving up to 11 is not that big a jump. It\'s possible. Also those were just rehashes of defensive convos that have gone on for Danno. I think he missed them somehow.

[Edited on 12/1/2005 by saintswhodi]

Rsanders24

Hey maybe we should draft a QB but do you really thonk a 1st rounder? Everybody for the most part agrees that Brooks doesn\'t have the leadership quality that is needed for the QB position but if that is the case why would you think that if we use a 1st round pick on a QB that he would fare any better if he has to learn under Brooks. I think that we should draft the best player for us that can come in a help instantly. Maybe a 2nd or 3rd rounder make sense. Who knows though maybe(Keyword:Maybe, don\'t jump down my throat.) Brooks has a Brees type year next year then if we draft a QB in the 1st round we could be facing the same situation because I think that SD has to keep him atleast one more year to see if it was a fluke or that he has finally come around otherwise they go with an unproven in in this league all team want to win now not 2 or 3 years from now.

Rsanders24

But moving up in the 1st round is very costly. I would love to see us get one of those guys, but I think and from past drafts moving up in the 1st round especially from the middle is expensive it would probaby cost us at least 2 more picks maybe one if it is an early rounder. I guess that we will have to see what happens with Brooks and Howard first. This is the only way I see us being able to get two 1st round picks.

[Edited on 12/1/2005 by Rsanders24]

saintswhodi

To address your first issue, my main problem with the Brooks may be like Brees thing is Brooks has ALWAYS had an offense, and still can\'t get it together. Even when the defense was decent, he couldn;t put it all together. Brees has had LT, and that\'s it. And Doug Flutie starting for him here and there. He knows his job is ALWAYs on the line. Brooks doesn\'t have these worries, so why should he get better? He knows he\'s the starter, that is fine with Haslett, and so he is safe. I don\'t see him working on getting better at all.

On your second issue, moving from 20 something to 10 or lower is a big move. 16 to 11, not so big. If Rolle is still there, it was just a thought. Dallas needs a pass rusher, and our D could use a playmaker. Not saying it would happen, but it\'s possible. And i don\'t mind drafting a qb in the first, if other needs are addressed in FA. I have little confidence though a qb could learn under Brooks or withthis staff so he must be given the opportunity to compete for the job right off cause after that, he will prob regress, unless he is a Peyton Manning type who just has it in him to wanna do better. Not talent wise, just personal fortitude wise. That sure ain\'t Leon.

WhoDat

Hey Danno - we have been agreeing a lot lately. Scary.

My point before stands true. After the Tackles AB is THE BIGGEST PROBLEM with the OFFENSE. There are some who suggest that he\'s not a problem at all, or a very minor one. I\'m pretty confident that he is a SIGNIFICANT problem.

There\'s no question that the Saints success next season will depend greatly on what their defense does. It is absolutely the biggest problem, by far. But then, you\'re comparing half the team to one guy. That\'s like saying that the offense not scoring in the first quarter all year was a bigger problem than DT. Sure, but that\'s not a fair comparison.

Based on what I saw from the defense and what I know about the players on defense, this team is fairly talented. Like you said, DT, WLB, SLB... We could use upgrades at SS and CB, but a tougher front 7 helps the secondary. If we could get 3 guys at DT and LB who impact the defense as much as McKenzie seemed to I think the defense will be pretty good. Of course, a coaching change at DC would hepl a lot also, but I\'m talking strictly player personnel here.

On Offense, you look at the tackles, and then you have to look at the QB position. Again, the QB, IMO, is THE MOST IMPORTANT player on the field. I think a big part of the reason that the offense is inconsistent as a unit is b/c their \"leader\" is inconsistent. I\'m not saying Brooks is the REASON, but he does CONTRIBUTE.

Point is, if I had to choose ONE single position to upgrade on this team, to go out and get the best money could buy, QB would be pretty close to the top of my list. That means he may not be THE problem - something a number of people assume is being said any time Brooks is criticized - be he is a SIGNIFICANT problem, that I think needs to be dealt with.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"