Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints

Draft Theories

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Honestly I love the guy... we all know that. He WAS a reach in the 4th because of his injuries. He is a great talent and a big IF. There were better options out there but oh well. I just ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-26-2005, 11:20 AM   #11
Retired
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 10,616
Draft Theories

Honestly I love the guy... we all know that. He WAS a reach in the 4th because of his injuries. He is a great talent and a big IF. There were better options out there but oh well. I just want us to give the guy a chance before running him out of town. He would make a good redzone target for us because he instantly becomes our tallest receiver.... which is something we lacked last year.

I would have also taken Boley and waited for Lyman in the 5th or 6th. But hey, once again, IF healthy, he will be a steal.

Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

All little common sense goes a long way.
papz is offline  
Latest Blogs
REFUND Last Blog: 12-07-2014 By: xan




Saints: A glimpse of the future Last Blog: 11-19-2014 By: lee909


Old 04-26-2005, 11:37 AM   #12
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: baton rouge
Posts: 2,540
Draft Theories

In a sense, not picking DJ made it harder for teams to game plan against our LBs, since the strike could come from any of the three (rather than designed to set up a single player).
i know whatcha are trying to get at koolio. i just dunno if i can latch onto it. think about the above. we could use that logic and say get rid of grant and smith on the d-line. they wouldn\'t know who to double team then, would they? or if we put henderson, talman, and lyman on the field for 3wide... they wouldn\'t know who we would throw to, would they? that might be better than having horn on the field. we might be better with less talent than more.
i cannot see brown as building from strength either. 34 yr old gandy and nobody? oops, a 32 yr old guard at tackle too.
if the two safety thing is workable with more planned run defense since our pass d is so incredible why did they choose a guy that has a specific criticism of being weak in run support?
i wanna be more hopeful, i just see too many holes. specifically, up the gut if there is 400-500 yds rushed in the first 3 games.


[Edited on 26/4/2005 by LKelley67]
LKelley67 is offline  
Old 04-26-2005, 12:41 PM   #13
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,417
Draft Theories

I agree with the problem you\'re noting Kelley. Putting a bunch of scrubs on the field will damage game planning (as you point out). However, if you cannot turn a unit into a strength, but another unit you can, I don\'t see what is wrong with that (in principle it makes good sense to me actually).

As for our line: Gandy (one time pro-bowler), Holland (up and comer), Bentley (pro-bowler), Mayberry (pro-bowler), and Brown (arguably the best OT in the draft). Sounds like a strength to me.

I too was down on Gandy, but I think that Riley was the real weak spot (and Bentley\'s transition). I also think the lack of I-back schemes hurt us. So, I\'m not convinced Gandy is done (though I do agree his best days are behind him) - his slippage may have been a product of transition to a new team, the 2TE mentality, Bentley\'s tranistion, Riley as a distraction on every third or fourth play, and so on. Gandy was at one time a great OT.

I don\'t remember anyone saying the Brown was WEAK in run support. I thought that the claim was he was STRONGER in pass protection than run blocking. I could well be wrong about that though.

Don\'t worry, I\'m with you on the frailty of the interior of our defense. I still think the Howard trade is coming. If it isn\'t, we\'ll hope the carp about Sully is true and he is ready to be a baller after all. I also think second year Watson and Colby will be much better than first year Watson and Colby.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks :cool:
JKool is offline  
Old 04-26-2005, 12:49 PM   #14
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: baton rouge
Posts: 2,540
Draft Theories

fair enough. here\'s hoping.

i meant about bullocks. the knock on him is being weak against the run.

okay on the line too. i meant more specifically at tackle only. old declining gandy and nobody else.
LKelley67 is offline  
Old 04-26-2005, 03:38 PM   #15
Retired
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 10,616
Draft Theories

Weak against the run... okay fine. He weighs 207 as of now and will probably put on 10-15 pounds of muscles through our strength and conditioning program. I\'m pretty sure he\'ll get better at it. And remember Dwight Smith is VERY good against the run. Smith might be small, but he is a very good tackler.
papz is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:50 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2014 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts