i pose a ? to you guys

Boogro · 04-19-2006, 11:09 AM

JimBone wrote:
Well, maybe he does want to be here, and maybe the Saints want him here...but maybe, just maybe, he and his agent want to be paid like a top 10 DE like whodi thinks he is...but Mr. Benson and Mr. Loomis think he is only a top25 DE and they cant come together on the money. Then he walks for nothing. Not because he didnt want to be here, but because of a difference of opinion...(MONEY)

Now i guess whodi will say "Charles Grant doesnt play the game for money, he plays for pride!"

LMAO!! I have a puppy to follow me from thread to thread. It's cute and all, but man crushes only make you look, ya know, GAY. You may want me to only argue with you about Grant every thread, and i'm flattered, but there's more informed opinions going around the board than NFL.com stat heroes. Thanks though. I think this is about the third or fourth time I have see you mention my name in a thread. I couldn't see myself giving you the time. It's kinda creepy.

I agree with Jimbone. To me the man offered you a challenge and you're just backing away and trying to put attention on the man by calling him gay. The thing with you is all you can come up with is guys just pull up stats and start arguing.

the rest of this post removed for content...

BrooksMustGo · 04-19-2006, 11:14 AM

I have a few thoughts on the Grant subject.

As is fairly well known by now, I have no problem at all with dealing Grant. I'll even give a few reasons in this post. I also have no problem that my good friend WhoDi and I disagree on this particular move. From what I'm reading, WhoDi seems to believe (I don't want to put words in your mouth so please correct me if I'm not reading you correctly) that a team doesn't get better by giving away good players who have a track record of being good on this level. I do not dispute that Grant is good. I don't think he's "great", but he is certainly good.

My take on the Grant situation is this.

1. Grant is entering his contract year. Facing this prospect, the organization has 2 options. We attempt to sign him to a lucrative deal right now. We wait to attempt to sign him and see how he plays after this coming season. If we chose to make a run at him now, I wouldn't feel comfortable paying him top 7 money after last season and hope he plays up to his price tag. If we wait until next year, we are faced with the ugly options of either franchising him or letting him walk. As a DE, I think he would be silly to at least not test the market. Either option isn't really pleasant to me. I would hate to franchise him. I would even worse hate to see him walk without getting value for him. That value can work for us.

2. This draft has several prospects on defense that I would consider "can't miss". I have no problem at all in staying at #2 and drafting Williams. He could be a bust I suppose, but I like that risk. He has the tools to be the best DE in the NFC. If we could trade down, I'd like that even better. If we took Williams at either 2-5, then I think we're in a win-win scenario. Hawk is also an appealing prospect, but I like Greenway almost as much the dropoff between the two guys ins't that great. I'd be deeply in favor of a scenario that would land us Williams and Greenway in round 1.

3. If we take Williams, we can't keep Grant. This just isn't hard for me to see. No platooning in a contract year. If we take Williams, we need to be on the phone with teams like Green Bay, Denver, the Jets (if we can't land their 2nd 1st rounder). Taking Williams forces us to move Grant at a point when we can get value for him.

4. If we deal Grant, we could end up with 2 quality starters. The math is just too hard for me to overlook. As I see it, Williams (unproven though he is) is no net loss from Grant. Winding up with a player like Greenway would make things that much better and provide us a net gain.

Will I be crushed if we don't take Williams? Not really--unless of course we take some OG from San Fernando Valley A&T that no one's ever heard of at #2. So to summarize, I'm OK with Williams, Ferguson or Hawk at #2, basically in that order, but would be very pleased with any of those guys. If we trade down, don't go so far as to miss one of the elite prospects.

So I disagree with my friend WhoDi, but politely so. I think I understand where he's coming from and he has a significant point. It's hard to trade away a proven "good" player on a maybe. I think my overall take at this point is that I'm willing to given Payton's talent evaluation the benefit of the doubt. Were we talking about Haslett wanting to trade Grant, I'd be violently opposed to it. Haslett could screw up rubbing suntan oil on the Hawaiian Tropic Girls.

Boogro · 04-19-2006, 11:27 AM

I agree with BMG. I think Grant is a good player, just a tad over-hyped these days. Everyone in the draft is unproven and there is no sure things, but chances are better to hit the big one with these guys. With Williams, Bush, Hawk, or Brick. Not only are we looking for good players, but dominant ones. I am not saying that they will all be dominant, but have good chances

saintswhodi · 04-19-2006, 11:30 AM

BMG, I still disagree, but that was like a breath of fresh air. Finally someone who can generally articulate what they wanna say, and doesn't need to follow anyone into two or three threads to make the same point. I applaud you my friend. Well done.

HDN4LIFE · 04-19-2006, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by BrooksMustGo

Pak, I totally read your title as "I pose for you guys". Once I got over being queasy I breathed a sigh of relief.

If we trade down to 4 and the Jets take Leinart, I think the Titans take Cutler. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them take Young. If they dont' take Young for whatever reason, then it depends on who the staff wants. If they want Hawk, then maybe we can trade down. I would bet that the Packers take Williams over Hawk.

In that case, I suppose we could trade with Oakland still find Hawk at #7. It's a pretty dangerous game to play though. The 49ers might like Hawk to replace Peterson.

I'm not sure we can trade past #7 and still count on seeing Ferguson, Hawk or Williams still on the board. We would have to get a sick amount of draft picks to move below those guys.

This is coming from a guy who lobbied hard for Houston Nutt to take over post-Haslett.

gandhi1007 · 04-19-2006, 11:41 AM

I'm not going to get into the whole rookie debate thing, but I do think Mario Williams will be a good NFL DE. That said, DE is not a position of need for this team considering that we already have two really good ones. Yes, Mario Williams will probably be a beast of a DE, but don't we need to address positions at DT (this would help the two good DE's we have), LB (which has been a weak part of the defense for some time now), OT (since we really have only one quality starter in Jamaal Brown), CB (besides McKenzie, who else do we have?), & C (who'll play that now with Bentley gone?).

JimBone · 04-19-2006, 11:45 AM

this post removed for content

saintswhodi · 04-19-2006, 11:57 AM

this post removed for content...

JimBone · 04-19-2006, 02:39 PM

Charles Grant is good. I like him. But I sure he hope he shows that consistency he showed from past years. I love knowing that he is going to produce somewhere between 2.5 and 12 sacks. Refreshing.

pakowitz · 04-19-2006, 02:43 PM

lol... nice....

04-19-2006, 11:09 AM	#41
Boogro Nose Digger Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 341	JimBone wrote: Well, maybe he does want to be here, and maybe the Saints want him here...but maybe, just maybe, he and his agent want to be paid like a top 10 DE like whodi thinks he is...but Mr. Benson and Mr. Loomis think he is only a top25 DE and they cant come together on the money. Then he walks for nothing. Not because he didnt want to be here, but because of a difference of opinion...(MONEY) Now i guess whodi will say "Charles Grant doesnt play the game for money, he plays for pride!" LMAO!! I have a puppy to follow me from thread to thread. It's cute and all, but man crushes only make you look, ya know, GAY. You may want me to only argue with you about Grant every thread, and i'm flattered, but there's more informed opinions going around the board than NFL.com stat heroes. Thanks though. I think this is about the third or fourth time I have see you mention my name in a thread. I couldn't see myself giving you the time. It's kinda creepy. I agree with Jimbone. To me the man offered you a challenge and you're just backing away and trying to put attention on the man by calling him gay. The thing with you is all you can come up with is guys just pull up stats and start arguing. the rest of this post removed for content...

04-19-2006, 11:14 AM	#42
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	I have a few thoughts on the Grant subject. As is fairly well known by now, I have no problem at all with dealing Grant. I'll even give a few reasons in this post. I also have no problem that my good friend WhoDi and I disagree on this particular move. From what I'm reading, WhoDi seems to believe (I don't want to put words in your mouth so please correct me if I'm not reading you correctly) that a team doesn't get better by giving away good players who have a track record of being good on this level. I do not dispute that Grant is good. I don't think he's "great", but he is certainly good. My take on the Grant situation is this. 1. Grant is entering his contract year. Facing this prospect, the organization has 2 options. We attempt to sign him to a lucrative deal right now. We wait to attempt to sign him and see how he plays after this coming season. If we chose to make a run at him now, I wouldn't feel comfortable paying him top 7 money after last season and hope he plays up to his price tag. If we wait until next year, we are faced with the ugly options of either franchising him or letting him walk. As a DE, I think he would be silly to at least not test the market. Either option isn't really pleasant to me. I would hate to franchise him. I would even worse hate to see him walk without getting value for him. That value can work for us. 2. This draft has several prospects on defense that I would consider "can't miss". I have no problem at all in staying at #2 and drafting Williams. He could be a bust I suppose, but I like that risk. He has the tools to be the best DE in the NFC. If we could trade down, I'd like that even better. If we took Williams at either 2-5, then I think we're in a win-win scenario. Hawk is also an appealing prospect, but I like Greenway almost as much the dropoff between the two guys ins't that great. I'd be deeply in favor of a scenario that would land us Williams and Greenway in round 1. 3. If we take Williams, we can't keep Grant. This just isn't hard for me to see. No platooning in a contract year. If we take Williams, we need to be on the phone with teams like Green Bay, Denver, the Jets (if we can't land their 2nd 1st rounder). Taking Williams forces us to move Grant at a point when we can get value for him. 4. If we deal Grant, we could end up with 2 quality starters. The math is just too hard for me to overlook. As I see it, Williams (unproven though he is) is no net loss from Grant. Winding up with a player like Greenway would make things that much better and provide us a net gain. Will I be crushed if we don't take Williams? Not really--unless of course we take some OG from San Fernando Valley A&T that no one's ever heard of at #2. So to summarize, I'm OK with Williams, Ferguson or Hawk at #2, basically in that order, but would be very pleased with any of those guys. If we trade down, don't go so far as to miss one of the elite prospects. So I disagree with my friend WhoDi, but politely so. I think I understand where he's coming from and he has a significant point. It's hard to trade away a proven "good" player on a maybe. I think my overall take at this point is that I'm willing to given Payton's talent evaluation the benefit of the doubt. Were we talking about Haslett wanting to trade Grant, I'd be violently opposed to it. Haslett could screw up rubbing suntan oil on the Hawaiian Tropic Girls.
	http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

04-19-2006, 11:39 AM	#45
HDN4LIFE Rookie Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1	Re: RE: i pose a ? to you guys Originally Posted by BrooksMustGo Pak, I totally read your title as "I pose for you guys". Once I got over being queasy I breathed a sigh of relief. If we trade down to 4 and the Jets take Leinart, I think the Titans take Cutler. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them take Young. If they dont' take Young for whatever reason, then it depends on who the staff wants. If they want Hawk, then maybe we can trade down. I would bet that the Packers take Williams over Hawk. In that case, I suppose we could trade with Oakland still find Hawk at #7. It's a pretty dangerous game to play though. The 49ers might like Hawk to replace Peterson. I'm not sure we can trade past #7 and still count on seeing Ferguson, Hawk or Williams still on the board. We would have to get a sick amount of draft picks to move below those guys. This is coming from a guy who lobbied hard for Houston Nutt to take over post-Haslett.
HDN4LIFE Rookie Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1

04-19-2006, 11:41 AM	#46
gandhi1007 Part Time Pimp Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,967	I'm not going to get into the whole rookie debate thing, but I do think Mario Williams will be a good NFL DE. That said, DE is not a position of need for this team considering that we already have two really good ones. Yes, Mario Williams will probably be a beast of a DE, but don't we need to address positions at DT (this would help the two good DE's we have), LB (which has been a weak part of the defense for some time now), OT (since we really have only one quality starter in Jamaal Brown), CB (besides McKenzie, who else do we have?), & C (who'll play that now with Bentley gone?).
	http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...gs/12-3006.jpg ______________________________ KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE! -G.I. Joe

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

04-19-2006, 11:27 AM	#43
Boogro Nose Digger Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 341	I agree with BMG. I think Grant is a good player, just a tad over-hyped these days. Everyone in the draft is unproven and there is no sure things, but chances are better to hit the big one with these guys. With Williams, Bush, Hawk, or Brick. Not only are we looking for good players, but dominant ones. I am not saying that they will all be dominant, but have good chances

04-19-2006, 11:30 AM	#44
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	BMG, I still disagree, but that was like a breath of fresh air. Finally someone who can generally articulate what they wanna say, and doesn't need to follow anyone into two or three threads to make the same point. I applaud you my friend. Well done.

04-19-2006, 11:45 AM	#47
JimBone 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Thibodaux, La Posts: 614	this post removed for content

04-19-2006, 11:57 AM	#48
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	this post removed for content...

04-19-2006, 02:39 PM	#49
JimBone 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Thibodaux, La Posts: 614	Charles Grant is good. I like him. But I sure he hope he shows that consistency he showed from past years. I love knowing that he is going to produce somewhere between 2.5 and 12 sacks. Refreshing.

04-19-2006, 02:43 PM	#50
pakowitz The Dark Overlord Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,450	lol... nice....