Mangold
 

With the Jets signing of Trey Teague, are the Saints a lock to land the OC from Ohio State with the #34 pick? I think it does, unless the Steelers draft him. But the Jets used to be the biggest competition for Mangold, but now that they have a starting center, it appears they have no need for him. Also, all of the new mock drafts that I've seen (the ones that used to have Mangold going to the Jets in the late first round), now have him going to us at #34.

Thoughts?

RE: Mangold
 

Yeah I would like Mangold 4 me is all depends on what we do first round........

RE: Mangold
 

I look for the Steelers to draft a wr. They need to replace Randle El. I look for them to take Moss or White if he is still around.

Man, I do hope we get Mangold.

I've got no problem with Mangold. In fact like him a lot.

If we decided to take a LB in round 2, I'd like to see us consider Chris Chester from Oklahoma as a C/G prospect. Provided we can get a 3rd round pick by some means.

My perfect draft (assuming we can't trade out of #2) looks like this right now:

1st- Hawk
2nd-Mangold
4th- Will Blackmon, Tim Jennings, Roman Harper (one of those)

Right there we've filled a MLB hole, a OC hole, and most likely a DC hole. I would love to trade, but I think that if we can't, we need to use our picks on guys who fill holes, not on guys who will make other very good players on our team sit on the bench.

I'm digging that Deuce. I could definitely live with that.

I want Brick at number 2 or whereever, and then at 34 Mangold.

wow last year everyone was calling for DJ this year its a lineman... funny how things change....

Huh?

1st- Hawk
2nd-Mangold

I see WAY more people calling for Hawk than a lineman.

Euphoria I was all for Brick also, until Brown switched to LT. Now I don't see a reason to use a Top 5 pick on a RT. Now, if someone tells me that Browns stays at RT,I am still game for Brick........so?

Like i have said before, it would bother me if the saints only had two first day picks. Reason being, it is reasonable to say that we could walk away from the draft saturday night and say we got Ferguson and Mangold. Two lineman. Now, while no one can say we dont need them, because we do, but once again, no playmakers in the draft when the opportunity is sitting there. Now our line would be shored up for the next umteen years, and thats fine. But i sure would like some sizzle added to the draft, be it with extra picks or with playmakers. I have a gut feeling that the Saints draft goes Ferguson in round 1 and D'Qwell Jackson in round 2. Just a hunch.

i know whodi im just sayin that alot of people still want brick at 2 not hawk at 2

Hawk, Mangold and Jennings would be a great thing.
If we trade the 2nd overall pick, which I think will happen, here's how I see our first selections going.

#4 - A.J. Hawk - A consensus top five pick that will start, day one.
#29 - Nick Mangold - Fills a huge void and is a good value @ 29 which is rare for a center
#34 - Antonio Cromartie - some concerns over his health could see him slip from the first round and would be the steal of the draft
#67 - Gabe Watson - His lack of consistency and conditioning has caused him to slip from a second round choice into the third,

I would puke if we took Gabe Watson in any round. Sully v2.0. No thanks.

D'Brick, Mangold, and Brown. We'd have one of the best OLs going for the next decade. It is hard for me to not be excited about that idea. Flash? I'm old enough to not care about that anymore. We've got Deuce, Brees, Horn, Stallworth, Hilton, not to mention Grant, W. Smith, D. Smith, and McKenzie - that's plenty of guys who can give us some flash. We need grinders, not flashers ... :banana:

I so agree we need the grinders up front to just overpower and run over people to free up our backs so they can run wild.

I think this is one of the worst options we could have, on so many levels. First, with our first two picks, we eschew defense? I couldn't disagree more with that. Second, which one do we let go in 4-5 years, cause there is NO WAY we are keeping three stud O-linemen. Matter of fact, name me a team that has three stud O-lineman. Noone does. I've said it before, i'll say it again, blocking is about schemes, not simply the best talent available. How many "studs" does NE have on their line? Pittsburgh? Seattle? Denver? You don't win by tying all your money up in O-line. Seattle didn't get over the hump until they got a stud MLB like Lofa Tatupu to lead that defense. They've had Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson for a while now. Three, what is wrong with Brown, Mayberry, Sticnh and Holland and whoever else they start at G, or pick up at LT in the second round? I don't see that as so terrible, especially with blokcing being about schemes. I'm just saying, i'd probably puke if we went O-line with our first two picks and completely pushed all this defensive talent in the draft to the side. If we take Brick, fine, but then no way I follow that with Mangold. No way, no how.

I suppose it depends on who is doing the flashing?

If not Mangold, I'd like Chris Chester G/C or maybe even Davin Joseph G if he lasted into round 2.

You couldn't disagree more? Come now, Whodi, you know you could.

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.

I agree that perhaps I'm being a bit o'er hasty about not taking any defensive players with the first two picks, but after Hawk, none of the defenders are really doing it for me. Further, wasn't it you who pointed out that our LB corps got a huge upgrade by merely getting new coaches? I'm inclined to agree with that. If Fugita and Simmons can play, and one of Watson, Bockwoldt, or Fincher decide it is time to stop sucking - I say major improvement. The D-backs we have I can live with, and that leaves only DT suffering ever so badly. I guess, I don't know what to say about that one, but I don't see that 2 OLmen with the first two picks is a bad idea at all (though I concede that your point about keeping all of them beyond their rookie contracts may be tough).

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then I will continue to strongly disagree, and leave it at that. Nothing in your argument Kool made me feel as if it is a good idea to take linemen with our first two picks. You say since we feel Brees will make our O-line better, won't coaching make our D better? Well one, Brees is actually on the field to make the offense better. If we had these coaches, and Aaron Brooks still at QB, I would still have no faith in Brooks. By the same token, coaching alone won't help our D, we need players as well. At LB and DT mainly. There is no argument you could make that won't have me thinking we are still gonna get gashed by opposing offenses without adding a stud defender from the draft to our D. I just can not see it. There is not an argument out there that will make me think taking two o-linemen with out first two picks is a good idea. Not one. Sorry bro. Just differences of opinion here.

Starting two rookies on our front line with a 1st year starting left tackle in Jammal Brown sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. And remember, Brees is coming off shoulder surgery. If we're expecting to win around here anytime soon and not 2-3 years from now, then that's not a bad plan. But with the acquisition of a high profiled qb, I don't think we're in the rebuilding stage.

Jim Bone... nothings wrong with Leinart and Mangold. I still have us selecting Leinart as our first pick in the draft and wouldn't mind seeing Mangold here either. I'd rather take a corner or linebacker with our 2nd round pick though and select a center in the 4th.

I would not put Mangold in as starter right way no matter what. Alot of playing time but not a starter. As captin of the OL he has alot to learn.
Matt is a skip at 2. I throw out draft value rankings here. I would not be surpised if the draft went Bush, Williams, DBrick, AJ, Davis, Huff, then Matt to Oakland at 7. Even with trades.

I'm sorry to hear that. I thought the discussion was interesting; however, given that you say the following, I guess you're right that we should drop it:
No point in discussing, then, I suppose.

Coaching alone will help our D. I think you'll agree given your earlier argument that we received an upgrade at LB when we changed our coaching staff. What you mean, I guess, is that we didn't receive enough of an upgrade in this way. I agree that Brees being on the field helps, but it is his leadership that helps - not mere (only) his raw physical assets. If that is the case, then I don't see why it is so implausible that leadership (wherever it comes from) could help our defense without a personnel change at all - an argument I believe you agree with.

Is it your contention that our Defense is an uncoachable and unimprovable as you believed Brooks to be? I'm guessing that is what you are after here: I am guessing, however, that you don't think that. It follows then that some improvement of our defensive middle will occur without changing any players. You do grant that, right?

The sort of claim I have in mind is this: a luxury pick with our 2nd round selection at OL is ok with me (not ideal, but ok). Is it really your view that not selecting a defensive player in the first or second round would make our draft a disaster? Would it be just bad, or a disaster? I guess, my idea is that it would be ok so long as defense is properly addressed at some point? I'm pretty sure that if we spend our first rounder on a DE or a TE, I'll go ape-shiznit.

Papz, players like D'Brick and Mangold are going to be able to start and perform well in thier first season (otherwise I'd be inclined to agree with you). These are guys like Hawk, Bush, or Williams who will all start on day one and be fine. I think the question is this: even without experience, don't you think that these two would be upgrades over the players we do have at those positions? I guess, as of now, I do.

As a final note, I don't see that we couldn't drop down a spot or two and still get D'Brick and Mangold and have an extra second or third rounder with which to take a defender. Thus, I guess, it should at least depend on how we get D'Brick and Mangold that would raise the ire of Saints fans (not merely that we did).

Hagan, that is an interesting point.

I think though that while it is a problem to have a different player call the blocking schemes, it could be done (for example Holland or Mayberry at G could do so). Also, Mangold is notably intelligent as I recall - surely he could manage. Further, the schemes could be adapted to require less man to man blocking, which would reduce the need for the C to call as much at the line.

Either way, in then end my arguments weren't FOR taking D'Brick and Mangold 1 and 2, they were intended to show that such a scenario isn't a disaster (that is the point Whodi was taking me to task on).

Mayberry could do it i agree. Holland is still learning. I hope it all clicks for him this year.
AJ anywhere in the top 5 as long as he is saint. He will be our WLB for years to come then Jackson/ Hodge.
Mixing the picks for each side of the ball is the safe bet but with draft being the year of the LB I can stay with it in the first 2 rounds. Next 2 (if we trade and get a third) has good Offensive picks the last 3 you got good players to upgrade the depth on both sides of the ball.

If you have a chance to draft the number one player in there position such as Brick and the number one center on a OL that sucked last year YOU DO IT... We have to protect better and we have to protect brees... he wasn't that good without a line in SD and the better the line the better Deuce will be. Its easier for an OL to make the transition to the pros than a QB. Linemen can come in and start.

Sure, that's why can't miss Gallery STILL isn't playing LT in Oakland. That's why Jordan Gross is playing RT for the Panthers. Yeah, it's easier. :roll:

LBs who made an immediate impact coming out recently-Vilma, DJ Williams, Odell Thurman, Lofa Tatupu, Karlos Dansby, Derrick Johnson.

Glad you said that, that would be AJ Hawk.

JKool:
It would be a bad disaster IMO. I like Simmons, but he is injury prone. I like Fujita, but he is solid at best, which is better than what we had, but isn't knocking anyone's socks off. Either goes down, we are back to Colby, Allen or Watson, and just one of the new guys. If we can go defense with the rest of our picks should we gain extra ones, why can't we do that for O-line? Like papz said though, I am not too keen on starting a bunch of rookie O-linemen anyway. One, sure. Go for it. But two rookies and Jamaal having his first year on the left? Uh uh. We could get Whitworth in the late 2nd or 3rd with an extra pick, and he can play RT just fine. So we could go Hawk, Bunkley, Ngata or Huff, then Mangold Whitworth. I'd be fine with that. My whole problem is if WE DON'T OR CAN'T trade down, and we go O-line, O-line back to back. We would be waiting until the 4th round to try and address defense? Disastrous in my mind. I know you wanna try to convince me, but I am 100% certain there is no way to make me think that if we don't trade down, taking offenisve linemen with our top two picks is a good idea. Uh uh, that would be terrible in my mind.

Whodi:

I enjoyed that.

Ok, I got it. There is no argument that can move you.

This whole stuff about rookie starters isn't flying with me. I agree with skill positions, other than RB and OLB, rookie starters are shakey; however, in the trenches rookie starters aren't all that rare nor that bad. Rookie starters on our OL is no worse than brining in free agents, since much of the success of an OL has to do with experience playing together. It is my view that shaking up the OL is as much of a problem or more than inexperience.

I guess, Whodi, you were right, and we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.