Mangold

papz · 04-21-2006, 08:07 PM

If we were to select Brick with the first pick, I wouldn't follow it with Mangold either. Trust me, look at the majority of centers or offensive lineman in general, the amount of quality starters selected between rounds 3-7 would be eye popping. Would you select a quarterback with you're first and second pick? RB? WR? DE? DT? CB? Probably not... could, but it wouldn't be wise. The premium prospects at other positions would probably all have been selected.

Euphoria · 04-21-2006, 09:22 PM

the two teams in the superbowl had dominating OL.

saintswhodi · 04-21-2006, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

the two teams in the superbowl had dominating OL.

No they didn't. Guess what, Pittsburgh has no first round tackles on their line. Guess what else? Seattle only had one, and a pro bowl guard. NOONE has a dominating O-line any more. Noone can afford it. NE, in all their superbowls, NEVER had a dominating O-line. Noone has had a dominating O-line since the no salary cap Cowboys.

You make it sound like any ol' set of pylons could make up a great OL. It isn't like receiving is just about running good routes; in the same way, blocking isn't just about the scheme. Of course, scheme may be a very bit factor in a successful line, but I'm just going to have to go ahead and disagree with you that it is "all about scheme." There is a reason that many OLmen don't cut it in the NFL.

And there's a reason why NE and Denver and Pittsburgh make guys you never heard of work. It's called scheme. Tom Ashworth, a two time superbowl winning starter for NE hit the open market, and hardly noone took a look at him. A great scheme, with great coaching, with a great QB, which we now have, will help any O-line. Again, I challenge you to find an NFL O-line with three studs. It doesn't happen. Denver has given teams the blueprint for taking guys and making the scheme more important than the player. How many first round draft picks are on their line?

Further, wasn't it you who pointed out that our LB corps got a huge upgrade by merely getting new coaches?

Yes I did, and added to that we still needed to get better. Hence a LB in the first or second. I'd take a DT as well. and roll with our current LBs if we traded down. I have been screaming for Hawk, that should imply I am in no way settled on our LBs, but I do expect improvement. [/quote]

hagan714 · 04-21-2006, 10:13 PM

2. Dbrick - 34. trade down,
4. AJ - 29. Mangold - 34. Davin Joseph or best CB that drops out of 1 - 35. trade down
and target Hodge/ McCargo/Zemaitis/ Klopfenstein/ Trueblood / Wilkinson / Rodrique Wright in this order to who ever will fork over a 3.

Euphoria · 04-21-2006, 10:38 PM

yeah, we may have to move up out of the second to the first to snag mangold the way its going...

JKool · 04-22-2006, 09:41 PM

Don't get me wrong here Whodi, I'm not against taking Hawk, nor am I opposed to almost any plan at this point, so long as it doesn't involve taking a TE or Vince Young in the openning two rounds. My point is just this: stacking the OL doesn't seem like a bad idea to me (at least in the short run). I take your point on not being able to keep them, and I agree that scheme does matter, it just isn't all that matters - not only that a bunch of stud OLinement make me happy... damn it.

There are a bunch of Olines, most noteably Green Bay two season ago, who lost two guys from their lines and didn't recover. Here is an argument for players over schemes. I'm sure GB would have just "changed their scheme" and the loss of those two wouldn't have mattered, if that was all there is to it. I concede your point that there are many successful teams without three studs on them, but my point wasn't that we couldn't be great with only two studs, it was that the probability of having a great OL is INCREASED (not guaranteed) with more studs. This is a pretty low cost claim; surely it isn't that point you're disagreeing with?

I believe that your idea is this: a third stud OLinemen is a luxury pick, not a necessity. I agree. However, this team has made what appear to be luxury picks when they weren't in a position to do so - see W. Smith and Duece for prime examples. I guess my point is this: a luxury pick on Oline is ok with me (at least far superior to a luxury pick at TE, WR, CB, S, or DE with the team we have - choices like that would, in my mind, be a bad pick.

saintswhodi · 04-22-2006, 10:10 PM

I guess my point is this: a luxury pick on Oline is ok with me (at least far superior to a luxury pick at TE, WR, CB, S, or DE with the team we have - choices like that would, in my mind, be a bad pick.

See, that I agree with, cause LB is not one of the listed "bad picks." I am not against taking O-line, I am against taking O-line with our first two picks and eschewing defense. If we trade down and got Hawk, I would not be mad at O-line on the next two picks. If we trade down and get Bunkley or Ngata, same. If we trade down and can still get D-Brick, in my mind, our next pick MUST be D. The scenario I am most against is not being able to trade down, and then taking Ferguson and then Mangold. I would be pissed to have to watch them sitting on the bench while our defense is allowing another 70 something yard drive cause they can't get off the field. I am advising anyone to take note, if Brees can go, I guarantee we will see a better O-line simply from his leadership, and football IQ as a QB. Add to that new coaches, watch and see. And it'll be without having to spend our entire early draft on O-line. But that last point you made, I agree with.

gandhi1007 · 04-22-2006, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

I am advising anyone to take note, if Brees can go, I guarantee we will see a better O-line simply from his leadership, and football IQ as a QB. Add to that new coaches, watch and see.

Good point whodi. Our previous QB had no pocket presence what so ever. As soon as he felt heat, he either rushed backwards or outside, most often right into the clutches of an oncoming defensive end. Brees does have pocket presence. He moves up in the pocket & lets the rush go right past him like most smart QB's.

I do think we need a solid center though. This is an important position, especially for a QB on a new team. Mangold is that guy. He's the best center to come out in a while. He's a great combo of strength & smarts. But, like you guys, I don't want to use our 1st two picks on O-line. Hawk 1st, then Mangold.

JimBone · 04-22-2006, 11:16 PM

The only thing worse than drafting o-line with the first two picks is drafting Leinart and mangold. For the same reason whodi said, the defense has got to be addressed early. If we are stuck with only two first day picks, at least one of them has to be on defense.

JKool · 04-23-2006, 03:00 AM

I'm inclined to disagree with you guys... slightly. Making our offense better can also make our defense better (giving them larger point cushons, more time to rest, inspiration/fire and so on). If you think that Brees makes our Oline better, why don't you think new coaching makes our LBs better?

I don't see a NEED to draft a defender with the first two picks - we've got solid sidelines on D (McKenzie, W. Smith, Grant, Fugita/Bockoldt and D. Smith) - we're only soft in the middle. Guys like Fincher, Simmons, Watson, Bullocks, and Young can all be that much better with new leadership (just like our offense can be better with new leadership).

I'm not saying I don't want to see a defender (as noted above), but I just wouldn't be unhappy with a pair of stud OLinemen, and I don't see that you guys should be either.

Further, I'm pretty sure my point about players vs. schemes above stands - an Oline is players AND scheme, not merely one or the other. Better players or better scheme (or both) and you have a better OLine.

04-21-2006, 09:32 PM	#23
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Originally Posted by Euphoria the two teams in the superbowl had dominating OL. No they didn't. Guess what, Pittsburgh has no first round tackles on their line. Guess what else? Seattle only had one, and a pro bowl guard. NOONE has a dominating O-line any more. Noone can afford it. NE, in all their superbowls, NEVER had a dominating O-line. Noone has had a dominating O-line since the no salary cap Cowboys. You make it sound like any ol' set of pylons could make up a great OL. It isn't like receiving is just about running good routes; in the same way, blocking isn't just about the scheme. Of course, scheme may be a very bit factor in a successful line, but I'm just going to have to go ahead and disagree with you that it is "all about scheme." There is a reason that many OLmen don't cut it in the NFL. And there's a reason why NE and Denver and Pittsburgh make guys you never heard of work. It's called scheme. Tom Ashworth, a two time superbowl winning starter for NE hit the open market, and hardly noone took a look at him. A great scheme, with great coaching, with a great QB, which we now have, will help any O-line. Again, I challenge you to find an NFL O-line with three studs. It doesn't happen. Denver has given teams the blueprint for taking guys and making the scheme more important than the player. How many first round draft picks are on their line? Further, wasn't it you who pointed out that our LB corps got a huge upgrade by merely getting new coaches? Yes I did, and added to that we still needed to get better. Hence a LB in the first or second. I'd take a DT as well. and roll with our current LBs if we traded down. I have been screaming for Hawk, that should imply I am in no way settled on our LBs, but I do expect improvement. [/quote]

04-22-2006, 09:41 PM	#26
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Don't get me wrong here Whodi, I'm not against taking Hawk, nor am I opposed to almost any plan at this point, so long as it doesn't involve taking a TE or Vince Young in the openning two rounds. My point is just this: stacking the OL doesn't seem like a bad idea to me (at least in the short run). I take your point on not being able to keep them, and I agree that scheme does matter, it just isn't all that matters - not only that a bunch of stud OLinement make me happy... damn it. There are a bunch of Olines, most noteably Green Bay two season ago, who lost two guys from their lines and didn't recover. Here is an argument for players over schemes. I'm sure GB would have just "changed their scheme" and the loss of those two wouldn't have mattered, if that was all there is to it. I concede your point that there are many successful teams without three studs on them, but my point wasn't that we couldn't be great with only two studs, it was that the probability of having a great OL is INCREASED (not guaranteed) with more studs. This is a pretty low cost claim; surely it isn't that point you're disagreeing with? I believe that your idea is this: a third stud OLinemen is a luxury pick, not a necessity. I agree. However, this team has made what appear to be luxury picks when they weren't in a position to do so - see W. Smith and Duece for prime examples. I guess my point is this: a luxury pick on Oline is ok with me (at least far superior to a luxury pick at TE, WR, CB, S, or DE with the team we have - choices like that would, in my mind, be a bad pick.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

04-22-2006, 10:23 PM	#28
gandhi1007 Part Time Pimp Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,967	Originally Posted by saintswhodi I am advising anyone to take note, if Brees can go, I guarantee we will see a better O-line simply from his leadership, and football IQ as a QB. Add to that new coaches, watch and see. Good point whodi. Our previous QB had no pocket presence what so ever. As soon as he felt heat, he either rushed backwards or outside, most often right into the clutches of an oncoming defensive end. Brees does have pocket presence. He moves up in the pocket & lets the rush go right past him like most smart QB's. I do think we need a solid center though. This is an important position, especially for a QB on a new team. Mangold is that guy. He's the best center to come out in a while. He's a great combo of strength & smarts. But, like you guys, I don't want to use our 1st two picks on O-line. Hawk 1st, then Mangold.
	http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...gs/12-3006.jpg ______________________________ KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE! -G.I. Joe

04-23-2006, 03:00 AM	#30
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	I'm inclined to disagree with you guys... slightly. Making our offense better can also make our defense better (giving them larger point cushons, more time to rest, inspiration/fire and so on). If you think that Brees makes our Oline better, why don't you think new coaching makes our LBs better? I don't see a NEED to draft a defender with the first two picks - we've got solid sidelines on D (McKenzie, W. Smith, Grant, Fugita/Bockoldt and D. Smith) - we're only soft in the middle. Guys like Fincher, Simmons, Watson, Bullocks, and Young can all be that much better with new leadership (just like our offense can be better with new leadership). I'm not saying I don't want to see a defender (as noted above), but I just wouldn't be unhappy with a pair of stud OLinemen, and I don't see that you guys should be either. Further, I'm pretty sure my point about players vs. schemes above stands - an Oline is players AND scheme, not merely one or the other. Better players or better scheme (or both) and you have a better OLine.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

04-21-2006, 08:07 PM	#21
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,754	If we were to select Brick with the first pick, I wouldn't follow it with Mangold either. Trust me, look at the majority of centers or offensive lineman in general, the amount of quality starters selected between rounds 3-7 would be eye popping. Would you select a quarterback with you're first and second pick? RB? WR? DE? DT? CB? Probably not... could, but it wouldn't be wise. The premium prospects at other positions would probably all have been selected.

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

04-21-2006, 09:22 PM	#22
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	the two teams in the superbowl had dominating OL.

04-21-2006, 10:13 PM	#24
hagan714 LB Mentallity Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 15,870 Blog Entries: 68	2. Dbrick - 34. trade down, 4. AJ - 29. Mangold - 34. Davin Joseph or best CB that drops out of 1 - 35. trade down and target Hodge/ McCargo/Zemaitis/ Klopfenstein/ Trueblood / Wilkinson / Rodrique Wright in this order to who ever will fork over a 3.

04-21-2006, 10:38 PM	#25
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	yeah, we may have to move up out of the second to the first to snag mangold the way its going...

04-22-2006, 10:10 PM	#27
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	I guess my point is this: a luxury pick on Oline is ok with me (at least far superior to a luxury pick at TE, WR, CB, S, or DE with the team we have - choices like that would, in my mind, be a bad pick. See, that I agree with, cause LB is not one of the listed "bad picks." I am not against taking O-line, I am against taking O-line with our first two picks and eschewing defense. If we trade down and got Hawk, I would not be mad at O-line on the next two picks. If we trade down and get Bunkley or Ngata, same. If we trade down and can still get D-Brick, in my mind, our next pick MUST be D. The scenario I am most against is not being able to trade down, and then taking Ferguson and then Mangold. I would be pissed to have to watch them sitting on the bench while our defense is allowing another 70 something yard drive cause they can't get off the field. I am advising anyone to take note, if Brees can go, I guarantee we will see a better O-line simply from his leadership, and football IQ as a QB. Add to that new coaches, watch and see. And it'll be without having to spend our entire early draft on O-line. But that last point you made, I agree with.

04-22-2006, 11:16 PM	#29
JimBone 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Thibodaux, La Posts: 614	The only thing worse than drafting o-line with the first two picks is drafting Leinart and mangold. For the same reason whodi said, the defense has got to be addressed early. If we are stuck with only two first day picks, at least one of them has to be on defense.