I'd rather reach for a LB than under-react!

GumboBC · 04-22-2005, 03:29 PM

What\'s up, BMG? Good to see ya around...

I\'m usually all about taking the common-sense approach. I\'m never one who likes to take needless risks!!

And I don\'t want to sell the farm or mortgage the future, but .. DAMN!!

I am just so sick of being linebacker needy!!

Whoever the best LB is in this draft, then we should do whatever it takes to get him. And that might require some sacrifice, but at least it gives us the best chance of finally getting a play-making LB.

How many YEARS has it been?

As WhoDat would say: When is enough enough?

WhoDat · 04-22-2005, 05:56 PM

While I agree that LB is still a major need and I share your frustration, simply throwing your hands up and saying, \"well, this guy is still around at 16 so let\'s just take him b/c he plays LB\" isn\'t a recipe for success either.

GumboBC · 04-22-2005, 05:58 PM

While I agree that LB is still a major need and I share your frustration, simply throwing your hands up and saying, \"well, this guy is still around at 16 so let\'s just take him b/c he plays LB\" isn\'t a recipe for success either.

I\'m not say take ANY LB at 16. I\'m saying make a move and get the BEST LB.

What do ya think?

BrooksMustGo · 04-22-2005, 06:19 PM

I\'m not say take ANY LB at 16. I\'m saying make a move and get the BEST LB.

The hard part of this strategy is whether the LB is worth the #16 pick. It wouldn\'t make sense to me to grab a guy like Thurman, for example, who very well might be there for us in round 2. Even if Thurman were the best available, that seems like too much of a reach.

I\'d like to see us get good value for the pick at 16. If we\'re dead set on drafting all LB\'s then let\'s move down and get a few more picks. Otherwise, stay at 16 and take the best guy there.

But then of course, I am fully prepared for us to take a RB so that Haslett can dump Deuce next year.

no_cloning · 04-22-2005, 06:48 PM

Seems like I have to translate Billy again to the common folk.
He\'s not saying the Saints should draft a linebacker at 16, he\'s saying: \"Draft Derrick Johnson, even if you have to trade up into the Top 10 to do it and give up draft picks (2nd rounder + ?). I\'m sick of getting Watson instead of Vilma or Cie Grant instead of Terrell Suggs. Just gimme a linebacker that gives me hope their might one day be a sequel to the Dome Patrol. PLEASE!\"

GumboBC · 04-22-2005, 06:54 PM

Seems like I have to translate Billy again to the common folk.
He\'s not saying the Saints should draft a linebacker at 16, he\'s saying: \"Draft Derrick Johnson, even if you have to trade up into the Top 10 to do it and give up draft picks (2nd rounder + ?). I\'m sick of getting Watson instead of Vilma or Cie Grant instead of Terrell Suggs. Just gimme a linebacker that gives me hope their might one day be a sequel to the Dome Patrol. PLEASE!\"

That cracked me up. But, you are correct. I\'ve had enough with the projects at LB.

See, what the Saints need is a linebacker who can flat run, and you know what, I want him to run forward. I don\'t care if he can cover. The Saints over the past few years have found too many linebackers who can cover. Darn it, how about one who might get 100+ tackles? How about one who will wreak havoc blitzing. Let all those high-dollar DB\'s cover. Get me a game changing LB.

Draft Derrick Johnson!!!

mutineer10 · 04-22-2005, 07:00 PM

1. What if Barron or Brown freakishly falls to 16?

Been saying that for a couple of weeks. With DJ obviously gone by #16, Jammal Brown could look like a steal at RT in a few years.

2. What if Mike Williams falls to 16?

Never happen, but I agree you\'ve gotta take him if he does somehow. We\'re not exactly infused with YOUNG talent at WR, and Mike Williams is my early pick for offensive rookie of the year.

He\'s not saying the Saints should draft a linebacker at 16, he\'s saying: \"Draft Derrick Johnson, even if you have to trade up into the Top 10 to do it and give up draft picks

Wouldn\'t complain if they did, and DJ seems to be slipping a bit on the \"experts\" draft boards. So long as we don\'t sell the farm for DJ, I\'m game.

I personally don\'t see a \"runstuffer\" LB worthy of a first round selection in this year\'s draft (both Johnson and Davis--if move to WLB--are more \"run \'em down\" LBs than \"plug the gap\" guys)

With the exception of Barrett Ruud, I agree, and #16 is probably too high for Ruud. Not sure there\'s a sure-fire Pro-Bowler in this LB crop at all, but I like DJ and Ruud better than anyone else. Time will tell...

CheramieIII · 04-22-2005, 07:06 PM

DJ is not the answer, can\'t tackle, PERIOD. We need LB, CB and QB.

When the Saints went to the playoffs with a chance to go to the bowl they had the best LB\'s in the game. Let\'s all remember the offense was\'nt spectacular. IT WAS THE DEFENSE.

SaintFanInATLHELL · 04-23-2005, 09:15 AM

Oh, yeah ... I know, we can always pick up a LB in the 2nd round.

Yeah, well .... according to most of the experts, all the LBs in the 2nd are not expected to be probowl caliber LBs.

IMHO ... We need a \"play-maker\" at LB. We need that one guy who can make a game-changing play.

I want to co-sign here. Here\'s a Duh revelation: All of the Saints\' best players are the ones with the superior talent and playmaking ability. DUH!!!

So why draft an also ran in any position, or more importantly a superior talent that\'s out of position.

The Saints should only draft a stud in one of three positions: LB (far and away the top need), DT (because of the two wasted 1st round picks on Sully), and OT (because stud OT unfortunately don\'t grow on trees)

SFIAH

THANK YOU GUMBO!!!! I have been saying this for weeks. It\'s all about the playmakers. I\'m tired of drafting mediocre players who we believe will \"make a difference.\" I\'m with you all the way.

04-22-2005, 03:29 PM	#11
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	I'd rather reach for a LB than under-react! What\'s up, BMG? Good to see ya around... I\'m usually all about taking the common-sense approach. I\'m never one who likes to take needless risks!! And I don\'t want to sell the farm or mortgage the future, but .. DAMN!! I am just so sick of being linebacker needy!! Whoever the best LB is in this draft, then we should do whatever it takes to get him. And that might require some sacrifice, but at least it gives us the best chance of finally getting a play-making LB. How many YEARS has it been? As WhoDat would say: When is enough enough?
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-22-2005, 05:56 PM	#12
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	I'd rather reach for a LB than under-react! While I agree that LB is still a major need and I share your frustration, simply throwing your hands up and saying, \"well, this guy is still around at 16 so let\'s just take him b/c he plays LB\" isn\'t a recipe for success either.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

04-22-2005, 05:58 PM	#13
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	I'd rather reach for a LB than under-react! While I agree that LB is still a major need and I share your frustration, simply throwing your hands up and saying, \"well, this guy is still around at 16 so let\'s just take him b/c he plays LB\" isn\'t a recipe for success either. I\'m not say take ANY LB at 16. I\'m saying make a move and get the BEST LB. What do ya think?
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-22-2005, 06:19 PM	#14
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	I'd rather reach for a LB than under-react! I\'m not say take ANY LB at 16. I\'m saying make a move and get the BEST LB. The hard part of this strategy is whether the LB is worth the #16 pick. It wouldn\'t make sense to me to grab a guy like Thurman, for example, who very well might be there for us in round 2. Even if Thurman were the best available, that seems like too much of a reach. I\'d like to see us get good value for the pick at 16. If we\'re dead set on drafting all LB\'s then let\'s move down and get a few more picks. Otherwise, stay at 16 and take the best guy there. But then of course, I am fully prepared for us to take a RB so that Haslett can dump Deuce next year.
	http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

04-22-2005, 06:48 PM	#15
no_cloning 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 249	I'd rather reach for a LB than under-react! Seems like I have to translate Billy again to the common folk. He\'s not saying the Saints should draft a linebacker at 16, he\'s saying: \"Draft Derrick Johnson, even if you have to trade up into the Top 10 to do it and give up draft picks (2nd rounder + ?). I\'m sick of getting Watson instead of Vilma or Cie Grant instead of Terrell Suggs. Just gimme a linebacker that gives me hope their might one day be a sequel to the Dome Patrol. PLEASE!\"
no_cloning 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 249

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

04-22-2005, 06:54 PM	#16
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	I'd rather reach for a LB than under-react! Seems like I have to translate Billy again to the common folk. He\'s not saying the Saints should draft a linebacker at 16, he\'s saying: \"Draft Derrick Johnson, even if you have to trade up into the Top 10 to do it and give up draft picks (2nd rounder + ?). I\'m sick of getting Watson instead of Vilma or Cie Grant instead of Terrell Suggs. Just gimme a linebacker that gives me hope their might one day be a sequel to the Dome Patrol. PLEASE!\" That cracked me up. But, you are correct. I\'ve had enough with the projects at LB. See, what the Saints need is a linebacker who can flat run, and you know what, I want him to run forward. I don\'t care if he can cover. The Saints over the past few years have found too many linebackers who can cover. Darn it, how about one who might get 100+ tackles? How about one who will wreak havoc blitzing. Let all those high-dollar DB\'s cover. Get me a game changing LB. Draft Derrick Johnson!!!
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-22-2005, 07:00 PM	#17
mutineer10 Site Donor Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 1,739	I'd rather reach for a LB than under-react! 1. What if Barron or Brown freakishly falls to 16? Been saying that for a couple of weeks. With DJ obviously gone by #16, Jammal Brown could look like a steal at RT in a few years. 2. What if Mike Williams falls to 16? Never happen, but I agree you\'ve gotta take him if he does somehow. We\'re not exactly infused with YOUNG talent at WR, and Mike Williams is my early pick for offensive rookie of the year. He\'s not saying the Saints should draft a linebacker at 16, he\'s saying: \"Draft Derrick Johnson, even if you have to trade up into the Top 10 to do it and give up draft picks Wouldn\'t complain if they did, and DJ seems to be slipping a bit on the \"experts\" draft boards. So long as we don\'t sell the farm for DJ, I\'m game. I personally don\'t see a \"runstuffer\" LB worthy of a first round selection in this year\'s draft (both Johnson and Davis--if move to WLB--are more \"run \'em down\" LBs than \"plug the gap\" guys) With the exception of Barrett Ruud, I agree, and #16 is probably too high for Ruud. Not sure there\'s a sure-fire Pro-Bowler in this LB crop at all, but I like DJ and Ruud better than anyone else. Time will tell...

04-22-2005, 07:06 PM	#18
CheramieIII Fan Since 1967 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Nomad Posts: 7,457 Blog Entries: 3	I'd rather reach for a LB than under-react! DJ is not the answer, can\'t tackle, PERIOD. We need LB, CB and QB. When the Saints went to the playoffs with a chance to go to the bowl they had the best LB\'s in the game. Let\'s all remember the offense was\'nt spectacular. IT WAS THE DEFENSE.

04-23-2005, 09:15 AM	#19
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,647	I'd rather reach for a LB than under-react! Oh, yeah ... I know, we can always pick up a LB in the 2nd round. Yeah, well .... according to most of the experts, all the LBs in the 2nd are not expected to be probowl caliber LBs. IMHO ... We need a \"play-maker\" at LB. We need that one guy who can make a game-changing play. I want to co-sign here. Here\'s a Duh revelation: All of the Saints\' best players are the ones with the superior talent and playmaking ability. DUH!!! So why draft an also ran in any position, or more importantly a superior talent that\'s out of position. The Saints should only draft a stud in one of three positions: LB (far and away the top need), DT (because of the two wasted 1st round picks on Sully), and OT (because stud OT unfortunately don\'t grow on trees) SFIAH THANK YOU GUMBO!!!! I have been saying this for weeks. It\'s all about the playmakers. I\'m tired of drafting mediocre players who we believe will \"make a difference.\" I\'m with you all the way.
	Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.