I'm nervous about AK being out for six games or more. After Mark Ingram, who is up there in age, we don't have a proven vet to go to and that makes me nervous too. I won't be surprised if we make a trade before TC. If we don't go that route then we will probably pick up a RB after roster cuts.

We have no idea when or even IF Kamara is suspended, nor how many games if it comes to pass. They still haven't formally pressed charges and it is still in the investigative stage with the next follow-up appearance not scheduled until August 1. The league now waits for legal proceedings to be resolved before administering punishments and it wouldn't surprise me if it doesn't get resolved until next year.

Others of us are more realistic and want the team to be prepared should things go bad for him.

Excuse me? Exactly who is saying that the team shouldn't be prepared? I missed that. I never said things couldn't go bad. I was pointing out that the timetable on that is totally unknown and may very well not be the first six games. If punishment comes down it could be eight games in the middle of the 2022 season. It could be four games at the end of the season running into the playoffs. It could be the first three games of the 2023 season. And, yes, it could come at the start of this season. If it comes at all.

I would assume the Saints are concerned about signing a vet prior to the beginning of the season with his salary being guaranteed for the entire year, especially if it looks like Kamara will be available to start the season. With the next investigative session scheduled for August 1 it is a very real possibility that the issue will not be resolved legally before the start of the season. In that case it makes complete sense, if targeting a veteran RB, to wait for the actual signing after the season begins.

Guido, you have no concept of conversational to and fro writing or grasp of “context”. Rugs made a post about his doubts on AKs upcoming availability and the quality of the depth at the RB position. He then expresses desire for a trade to bolster the position. I liked his post as I agree with him 100%. I fear the RB position may be our achilles’ heel this year (BTW that doesn’t mean I hate Kamara for pulling a jerk move or Ingram for getting old or Jones Jr for being unproven).

You then make a post that in tone and context refutes him. You express no worry about AK missing games and indicate you wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t happen this year. (Forgetting the idea he could still miss games with injury as he sometimes has). You also don’t address the concern of positional depth he brings up in his post. You could have said “There’s question marks, but the team will eventually address them” or something like that. But you don’t. You only try to show him wrong. Your post didn’t say the team shouldn’t be prepared but you sure has hell didn’t agree with Ruggs point that they should be. You made a post to invalidate his position and said nothing to agree or recognize his concerns. It’s a matter of being able to disagree with a poster without being confrontational. It’s something you sorely lack.

Sorry if I stepped on your toes Ruggs. I agree with your post fully and have expressed the same idea a couple of times. When Guido responded in the dismissive manner he did I felt like responding.

Holy crap, Boston. Go back and read my response to Rugs. Nowhere did I refute what he was saying. All I did was to expound on what he said by pointing out the unknowns involved. Nowhere did I say we shouldn't be prepared. With the speed the legal system motors it may very well be a year from now before everything is resolved and any discipline is handed down. I was simply sharing this on top of his concern.

Not only did I not say the need for RB depth doesn't need to be addressed, but I even discussed that the timing of obtaining that depth could be affected by whether or not it was a veteran that was being considered bringing into play the full season guaranteed salary if signed before week one.

I know you enjoy "offering constructive criticism" as you point out in your profile and also like playing the "devils advocate" as you have pointed out on occasion, but why must you always read things into my posts that are not there and feel the need to defend some position that doesn't need to be defended in the first place?

It is very frustrating.

Guido, you have no concept of conversational to and fro writing or grasp of “context”. Rugs made a post about his doubts on AKs upcoming availability and the quality of the depth at the RB position. He then expresses desire for a trade to bolster the position. I liked his post as I agree with him 100%. I fear the RB position may be our achilles’ heel this year (BTW that doesn’t mean I hate Kamara for pulling a jerk move or Ingram for getting old or Jones Jr for being unproven).

You then make a post that in tone and context refutes him. You express no worry about AK missing games and indicate you wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t happen this year. (Forgetting the idea he could still miss games with injury as he sometimes has). You also don’t address the concern of positional depth he brings up in his post. You could have said “There’s question marks, but the team will eventually address them” or something like that. But you don’t. You only try to show him wrong. Your post didn’t say the team shouldn’t be prepared but you sure has hell didn’t agree with Ruggs point that they should be. You made a post to invalidate his position and said nothing to agree or recognize his concerns. It’s a matter of being able to disagree with a poster without being confrontational. It’s something you sorely lack.

Sorry if I stepped on your toes Ruggs. I agree with your post fully and have expressed the same idea a couple of times. When Guido responded in the dismissive manner he did I felt like responding.

Excuse me? Exactly who is saying that the team shouldn't be prepared? I missed that. I never said things couldn't go bad. I was pointing out that the timetable on that is totally unknown and may very well not be the first six games. If punishment comes down it could be eight games in the middle of the 2022 season. It could be four games at the end of the season running into the playoffs. It could be the first three games of the 2023 season. And, yes, it could come at the start of this season. If it comes at all.

I would assume the Saints are concerned about signing a vet prior to the beginning of the season with his salary being guaranteed for the entire year, especially if it looks like Kamara will be available to start the season. With the next investigative session scheduled for August 1 it is a very real possibility that the issue will not be resolved legally before the start of the season. In that case it makes complete sense, if targeting a veteran RB, to wait for the actual signing after the season begins.

Yes, you are always “pointing out” some sort of contrary ****. It’s like Groundhog Day around here.