Two questions about picking straight up with #2
 

It's coming down to brass tacks folks with just over 48 hours until the Saints are on the clock.

I have two questions for consideration:

1. Have the Saints automatically screwed up at #2 if they do not trade down and get more value for the pick?

2. If the Saints must pick a player to pick and keep at #2, then who should they pick and why?

I'll take the first crack at answers:

1. No. If the Saints can get an exceptional player that can contribute, then the pick isn't screwed up.

2. My gut says to pick D'Brick. Book-end franchise tackles are at a premium in this league. I'm fearful of trading down because I think the Jets may pick him up.

Let me know what you think.

SFIAH

I'll answer both of your questions with just one response: AJ Hawk. If we draft him at 2 and can't trade down, I will still be happy as a pig in slop. D'Brick, not as excited, but i'll accept it. It would be great to get more picks in such a deep draft, but if we get Da Hawk, i'll be the happiest I have been in a draft in a while, well, maybe since we took Stallworth. I was really hoping we took him out of Tennessee and we did. Hasn't been as great as I thought it would be, but it's getting there. AJ Hawk is the answer to the question, no matter what the question is. 8)

RE: Two questions about picking straight up with #2
 

Let's just assume that the Saints have already screwed up. That takes the pressure off and allows focusing on making a choice at #2. Any of the top 8 candidates would be a much needed addition to the team, though each has some drawbacks, like Mario Williams, who's never played well in games that mattered and only impresses in non-contact workouts. Because of their drawbacks, these players carry some risk, however, the consensus is that the risks associated with these players is lower compared to other draft classes.

The two most whined about positions over the last 6 years has been the poor play of the quarterbacks, linebackers and defensive tackles. It is unlikely that the Saints will pick a DT as there are none in this draft who rate a top 10 selection, much less a #2. That leaves LB and QB. Many have argued that the team took care of business by signing Drew Brees, while many have pointed out that while an exciting addition to the team, his career threatening injury may not be healed either ever or in time to make a difference to the Saints this season. As for LB, the team has acquired two solid and proven free agents, but that simply gives the team 2 average NFL players out of a need for at least 4 solid ones. The team needs a defensive midfield threat/leader almost as badly as it needs an on the field offensive leader.

There are 3 highly rated qbs, all of whom are expected to go in the top 10, while there is but 1 highly rated LB. The choice is to pray that Brees will come through and pick Hawk, or hedge and chose Lienart.

Some may point out that with three of last years' starters either cut or lost to FA, the o-line should get some attention. While true, there are 7 extremely good linement in this draft and there is a likelihood that 3 of them will be available at the 2nd pick in round 2; the urgency to fill this need is diminished. In addition, the tackle position is not the most critical need as center and two guards need to be replaced, and no c or g has been drafted at #2 ever.

This is a very tough call to make because it all depends on something the Saints cannot control - the durability and healing of an injury. My guess is that the FO thinks that Brees will defy the overwhelming odds against being able to play at a high level and select Hawk.

RE: Two questions about picking straight up with #2
 

if we take hawk or brick i am ok with it. if we can't move down i don't think that kills us. i would like to but it is not a must. at 2 we are going to get a good player or at least you hope you are. i like hawk because the guy seems to be tough. i like brick because having two really good tackles in the years to come is a huge plus. if we take mario williams i am not as thrilled unless we are trying to use grant as bait for other picks. not saying that i want that but just don't understand the move of crowding one postition with excellent pl;ayers and having holes all over the place. if we take vince young then i am turning off the tv, throwing up, crying, and going to bed.

The automatic screw up to me is if they have decided they will go no lower than #4 in trade. This draft in my opinion has great selections in the lower first to third round. I like the whole lower salary and rate of success risk of multiple picks in that zone rather than it all riding on a single impact player. We only have 2 first day picks as is with a whole lot more positions of need than that. Trading down is the number one option.

I also will be MOST happy with Hawk at 2, 4, or wherever. D'Brick would be a solid pick IMO also. I will question Mario but will hope it turns into some kinda dynamic duo with Smith. If they can get fair value for Grant I'd really be impressed. If you believe NYJ no-QB is only smokescreen and have the balls, then pick Leinart and force the issue.

that is risky kelley but not a terrible choice. taking matt and forcing the issue that is. i am for trading down as well. i am also not for having to stay in the top 4. we can really add some value by moving down but the question then becomes is anyone willing to pay that price. the only way is if there is a player they want bad and know they have no chance otherwise. i wouldn't mind getting a trade done with the raiders. i think they could give us their first and second and fourth this year and maybe a second next year. that would make it basically even on the chart. i don't see them giving us their first second and third this year. do you think they would give that much to move up 5 spots?

i think the saints if the three team trade does occur would be fine... just draft bunkley from florida st or huff from texas and get extra picks in the process... honestly, i think that the saints are in the best position of any team out there b/c of the depth of the draft and the desire of other teams...

i don't see LB as an urgency like i did in the past... fujita is solid, simmons (if healthy is a pro-bowl caliber player) and colby is coming into his own in the league.... don't forget we have a healthy fincher this year, whom everyone blew their load over last year, but now has become an after thought.... i think in the second, thomas howard, jon alston, abdul hodge, or d'qwell jackson would be a great addition to the saints and allow them to upgrade there, as well another area in the first round... like the offensive line...

I'm not sold on Fincher yet chRxis. He hasn't proven anything, and I didn't like the pick last year. Maybe he'll prove me wrong, but I still see one more LB spot as an area of need. We obviously need a center, and we could use help at the DT spot, but I still think LB is a considerable need. Fujita will play on the outside. Simmons, IMO, is better on the inside, but can still play the outside. Then we have COlby, who blows goats. If 67-year old Curtis Martin can blow you up while you're trying to tackle him, then you shouldn't be a starting LB in this league. That leaves one more spot open, and with Hawk's versatility and ability to play inside and outside, I think he's a no-brainer.

And then there's Mario Williams, but I won't even get into that. All I have to say is Will Smith and Charles Grant.

It doesn't matter who we take with our first pick, we HAVE to take Mangold with the #34.

i think that spitz out of louisville or eslinger from minnesota would be just as good for our offense as mangold... you also have to think do you want 2 rookies starting for your offensive line at the same time (assuming we draft ferguson)? everything right now from everyone on this board or others is speculation and opinion... i was just adding mine...

i really do believe that LB is an area of need, just not the most important area of need right now... i even think that CB as leaped up past LB for us on the need ladder... especially if d. smith is dealt (i'm very much in favor of switching him to CB opp. mckenzie)... have bullocks and bellamy/scott/stoutmire at safety... maybe draft bullocks' twin later if possible... who knows... nobody has a clue (including me) at this point... i just hope we don't look back 5 years from now and say "why did we draft that loser?" ala jonathan "don't touch my plate, i ain't finished yet" sullivan

I know you love Mangold Deuce. I do too. But unless a trade happens I think he will be gone before #34. The Bengals have a Gandy-like 36 yr old to be center. Even more likely is Pittsburgh with no center. They have lifetime 34 yr old guard Hartings on the depth chart.

How about the saints sending the number 2 pick in the draft to green bay for the number 5 pick, a 3rd rounder and Javon Walker? Since the Saints are meeting with Walker today, that seems like a good deal.

i agree... mangold to the steelers at #32... unless lendale white slips to them (good possibility) then they'll have some thinking to do at that point... but i don't see lendale falling past carolina...

The five spot would be an ideal place to land Hawk JimBone. The Packers have NEVER traded up in recent history and stated they have no interest in trade either. They are hardlining Walker since he said he would retire before playing there again. Thus, trading him does not seem to be a must. That would be a good deal though. I like sending Stallworth for him straight up. Both similar in money/contract status. Pack gets someone who will at least play, we get a better performer (even if just for one season).

Every mock draft that I've seen has Mangold falling to the Saints at #34 (except for crackhead Pat Kirwan who had him going #14 to the Eagles). All I'm saying is that we need LB help, and Hawk is the perfect fit. He's the kind of guy that leads a defense. We also need a center, and we HAVE to find a way to get Mangold.

i agree whole heartedly deuce... we need LB and hawk would be the absolute perfect fit... but we are talking about the best choice at #2 that we can possibly get... while hawk would be a great get, the best get, considering the shape our offensive line is in at the present time, would be ferguson... we have some competent LB's (finally) but our offensive line is depleted... we need someone up front to protect our new investment, b/c if not, you could have the all-madden LB corps and it wouldn't matter if you have bouman at the helm... see where i'm coming from.... the defense is missing a piece and hawk would fill it better than anyone else out there, but could a thomas howard or jon alston come in and help out immediately... i definitely think they could, while it wouldn't be as good as hawk... could an eric winston or andrew whitworth come in and excel like a ferguson... probably not... that's why i think you have to get ferguson with this pick... i've been wrong before and i'll be wrong again, maybe about this very subject, but we'll see saturday

Heck I am at the point now to agree with LKELLY67 here and the mid pick point of view. Heck trade with denver and take Greenway or Carpenter at 15 and take all those extra picks. dream
Serious side, I think if we take picks high next year we will trade out. Two years in the cat bird seat is better than one. Bush, DBrick, AJ, are the team needs. Mario and Davis are luxary picks that will be good but Davis wins out on versitility. Though Mario playing as a #3 DE and learning OLB for a year is some thing to think about.
AT 34 mangold would be sweet but i am not counting on it. we will see who drops from round 1, CB, then decide. I see us trading here and picking later in the round.