Saints maybe interested in Big Daddy.

LordOfEntropy · 07-31-2003, 12:33 PM

Well, I think we agree to disagree on this issue.

coastalkid · 07-31-2003, 12:43 PM

It could work out for both the Saints and Wilkerson. First of all if we were to get him cheap for a one year contract with certain incentives and clauses we could benefit greatly if he performed up to his original billing as he would have a supporting cast much better than anything he has played with before. This could benefit him as his performance improvement, assuming it does improve, would enable him to garner a more lucrative contract next year with either the Saints or another team. If we did sign him and he didn\'t work out we could always cut him at the end of training camp or later if the need be. We have not much to loose and possibly alot to gain.

ScottyRo · 07-31-2003, 01:00 PM

From the article I read there were as many as 10 teams looking at him. So, I wouldn\'t expect him to take a minimum, incentive-laden contract from the Saints over what other teams might be willing to pay him out of desperation for a solid DT.

The thing is...you just can\'t expect him to acheive anymore than he has in the last 10 years. My expectations are for him to be injured again and be lucky to get 20 tackles this year. He is apparently the type of player who does just enough to get on a team and get paid and do nothing more than he must. Why the Redskins would want him and his 16 tackles back is beyond me, but there were many teams willing to keep signing Lawrence Phillips even though all he did as prove he was a head-case and not very good at his position. I never could explain that either.

However, when healthy, Wilkinson is a solid player, but we already have a \"solid\" player in DT Ford. Plus, we have Jackson and Smith. All 3 are going for the one remaining starting position because Sullivan is going to start at the other (probably in game 1). If Wilkinson outplays whoever we start next to Sullivan, I\'ll be very surprised.

lumm0x · 07-31-2003, 01:01 PM

The Bengals finished tied for fifth in the AFC in sacks (37), but tackle could become a major problem area this season. Wilkinson led AFC interior linemen in sacks with eight, but he was out of shape at mini-camp and his attitude is a concern. \"Big Daddy\" was the only Bengal veteran under contract who didn\'t report to the team\'s two voluntary camps.

http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/2694/sh01001.html

Sounds alot like Grady.

Leadership is sometimes a matter of showing the way, and other times about making sure no one gets left behind. When the Bengals signed Simmons last May, their obvious need was for a right end to replace Dan Wilkinson. Their less obvious need was for a serious, seasoned veteran -- someone who could set an example and shed a block. Someone who was more concerned about the game than the party afterward.

Seeking right attitude

\"We had young guys who were gifted (in the past),\" said Mike Brown, the general manager. \"But they had growing pains. We set up differently this time around. We were conscious that we wanted a group of people who had an NFL attitude. We weren\'t looking to have more problems. We wanted fewer.\"

Clyde Simmons confesses that he has lost some of his \"burst\" since 1992, when he led the league with 19 quarterback sacks for the Philadelphia Eagles, but his instincts are intact and his technique is virtually textbook. At 34, Simmons is plainly past his prime as a professional athlete, and yet he remains ahead of the competitive curve.

Where he stands vis-a-vis the underwhelming Wilkinson is yet to be determined. Wilkinson may well prosper in Washington, paired with the prolific Dana Stubblefield and distanced from the distractions of playing close to home.

Yet young Bengal linemen were unlikely to improve under Wilkinson\'s influence, and they are bound to benefit from Simmons\' example. Sometimes in sports, you trade talent to get temperament. Particularly when that potential -- unrealized and uncommitted -- decides his difficulties are attributable to a racist town.

http://www.enquirer.com/columns/sull.../080698ts.html

Just dropping some data I located for you all.

LordOfEntropy · 07-31-2003, 01:09 PM

Thanx Lumm0x.
-LOE

BillyCarpenter1 · 07-31-2003, 01:31 PM

Please ! ! That\'s one guys opinion and Mike Browns at that. About 80% of the players in the league have had negitive things said about them. The media says things and sometimes players say foolish things to try to defend themselfs.

I\'m not looking for another potential leader to come to this team, god knows we have enough of them. I just want someone who can contribute. I don\'t want no role model or born again christian, just a player that can maybe come in and prove everyone wrong. I don\'t want someone that\'s going to disrupt things and I don\'t think he would.

Yeah, the Bengals D-line really prospered under Clyde Simmons....

[Edited on 31/7/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

lumm0x · 07-31-2003, 01:52 PM

Hey Billy, don\'t shoot the messenger. You said you never read any negative comments about him so I posted them up. I\'m not going to defend Mike Brown, Clyde Simmons or the Bengals in this.

Would I think Wilkinson would be a disruption here, not likely. I\'d rather see us let our young DL like Sullivan and Smith get game time and have Vets like Ford, Chase, Jackson and Whitehead fill the rotation. I think Wilkinson would come in and do what he always does, plays just well enough to earn the starting spot but always be on the bubble to lose it. My opinion is we have more pressing depth needs now that Ford and Sullivan are signed than this.

BillyCarpenter1 · 07-31-2003, 01:59 PM

I wasn\'t directing that at you LummOx, but at the congrats sent out to you by Lord. I want Grady, Sullivan and Kenny Smith to be our starters, but I think Wilkinson would be a great backup and just maybe he could step up somewhere down the line. The only thing I\'ve really been arguing here, is that Wilkinson has done nothing to not be considered, if the price is right.

LordOfEntropy · 07-31-2003, 02:23 PM

Billy, what was that about?

I wasn\'t harping on you, nor did I congratulate anybody about anything. All I did was thank Lumm0x for sharing the link about offseason conditioning.

Remember that you asked if anyone could back it up... I couldn\'t find it, Lumm0x did, so I thanked him. That wasn\'t any congrats, nor any sort of smug dogging.

Bottom line - you (and others) think we should grab Daddy, I (and others) don\'t. End of story. No razzing or hazing, just differing opinions, which is of course what this board is about. No smugness was meant.

BillyCarpenter1 · 07-31-2003, 06:12 PM

Lord,

Just letting LummOx know that my last post was for you and not him. His article tended to support what you have been saying and I was just saying that the article was biased. No disrespect intended. Just debating.......that\'s it.

07-31-2003, 12:33 PM	#21
LordOfEntropy 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cary, NC Posts: 1,838	Saints maybe interested in Big Daddy. Well, I think we agree to disagree on this issue.

07-31-2003, 12:43 PM	#22
coastalkid 100th Post Join Date: May 2003 Location: Spain Posts: 287	Saints maybe interested in Big Daddy. It could work out for both the Saints and Wilkerson. First of all if we were to get him cheap for a one year contract with certain incentives and clauses we could benefit greatly if he performed up to his original billing as he would have a supporting cast much better than anything he has played with before. This could benefit him as his performance improvement, assuming it does improve, would enable him to garner a more lucrative contract next year with either the Saints or another team. If we did sign him and he didn\'t work out we could always cut him at the end of training camp or later if the need be. We have not much to loose and possibly alot to gain.

07-31-2003, 01:00 PM	#23
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Saints maybe interested in Big Daddy. From the article I read there were as many as 10 teams looking at him. So, I wouldn\'t expect him to take a minimum, incentive-laden contract from the Saints over what other teams might be willing to pay him out of desperation for a solid DT. The thing is...you just can\'t expect him to acheive anymore than he has in the last 10 years. My expectations are for him to be injured again and be lucky to get 20 tackles this year. He is apparently the type of player who does just enough to get on a team and get paid and do nothing more than he must. Why the Redskins would want him and his 16 tackles back is beyond me, but there were many teams willing to keep signing Lawrence Phillips even though all he did as prove he was a head-case and not very good at his position. I never could explain that either. However, when healthy, Wilkinson is a solid player, but we already have a \"solid\" player in DT Ford. Plus, we have Jackson and Smith. All 3 are going for the one remaining starting position because Sullivan is going to start at the other (probably in game 1). If Wilkinson outplays whoever we start next to Sullivan, I\'ll be very surprised.

07-31-2003, 01:01 PM	#24
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	Saints maybe interested in Big Daddy. The Bengals finished tied for fifth in the AFC in sacks (37), but tackle could become a major problem area this season. Wilkinson led AFC interior linemen in sacks with eight, but he was out of shape at mini-camp and his attitude is a concern. \"Big Daddy\" was the only Bengal veteran under contract who didn\'t report to the team\'s two voluntary camps. http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/2694/sh01001.html Sounds alot like Grady. Leadership is sometimes a matter of showing the way, and other times about making sure no one gets left behind. When the Bengals signed Simmons last May, their obvious need was for a right end to replace Dan Wilkinson. Their less obvious need was for a serious, seasoned veteran -- someone who could set an example and shed a block. Someone who was more concerned about the game than the party afterward. Seeking right attitude \"We had young guys who were gifted (in the past),\" said Mike Brown, the general manager. \"But they had growing pains. We set up differently this time around. We were conscious that we wanted a group of people who had an NFL attitude. We weren\'t looking to have more problems. We wanted fewer.\" Clyde Simmons confesses that he has lost some of his \"burst\" since 1992, when he led the league with 19 quarterback sacks for the Philadelphia Eagles, but his instincts are intact and his technique is virtually textbook. At 34, Simmons is plainly past his prime as a professional athlete, and yet he remains ahead of the competitive curve. Where he stands vis-a-vis the underwhelming Wilkinson is yet to be determined. Wilkinson may well prosper in Washington, paired with the prolific Dana Stubblefield and distanced from the distractions of playing close to home. Yet young Bengal linemen were unlikely to improve under Wilkinson\'s influence, and they are bound to benefit from Simmons\' example. Sometimes in sports, you trade talent to get temperament. Particularly when that potential -- unrealized and uncommitted -- decides his difficulties are attributable to a racist town. http://www.enquirer.com/columns/sull.../080698ts.html Just dropping some data I located for you all.

07-31-2003, 01:09 PM	#25
LordOfEntropy 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cary, NC Posts: 1,838	Saints maybe interested in Big Daddy. Thanx Lumm0x. -LOE

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

07-31-2003, 01:31 PM	#26
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Saints maybe interested in Big Daddy. Please ! ! That\'s one guys opinion and Mike Browns at that. About 80% of the players in the league have had negitive things said about them. The media says things and sometimes players say foolish things to try to defend themselfs. I\'m not looking for another potential leader to come to this team, god knows we have enough of them. I just want someone who can contribute. I don\'t want no role model or born again christian, just a player that can maybe come in and prove everyone wrong. I don\'t want someone that\'s going to disrupt things and I don\'t think he would. Yeah, the Bengals D-line really prospered under Clyde Simmons.... [Edited on 31/7/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

07-31-2003, 01:52 PM	#27
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	Saints maybe interested in Big Daddy. Hey Billy, don\'t shoot the messenger. You said you never read any negative comments about him so I posted them up. I\'m not going to defend Mike Brown, Clyde Simmons or the Bengals in this. Would I think Wilkinson would be a disruption here, not likely. I\'d rather see us let our young DL like Sullivan and Smith get game time and have Vets like Ford, Chase, Jackson and Whitehead fill the rotation. I think Wilkinson would come in and do what he always does, plays just well enough to earn the starting spot but always be on the bubble to lose it. My opinion is we have more pressing depth needs now that Ford and Sullivan are signed than this.

07-31-2003, 01:59 PM	#28
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Saints maybe interested in Big Daddy. I wasn\'t directing that at you LummOx, but at the congrats sent out to you by Lord. I want Grady, Sullivan and Kenny Smith to be our starters, but I think Wilkinson would be a great backup and just maybe he could step up somewhere down the line. The only thing I\'ve really been arguing here, is that Wilkinson has done nothing to not be considered, if the price is right.
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

07-31-2003, 02:23 PM	#29
LordOfEntropy 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cary, NC Posts: 1,838	Saints maybe interested in Big Daddy. Billy, what was that about? I wasn\'t harping on you, nor did I congratulate anybody about anything. All I did was thank Lumm0x for sharing the link about offseason conditioning. Remember that you asked if anyone could back it up... I couldn\'t find it, Lumm0x did, so I thanked him. That wasn\'t any congrats, nor any sort of smug dogging. Bottom line - you (and others) think we should grab Daddy, I (and others) don\'t. End of story. No razzing or hazing, just differing opinions, which is of course what this board is about. No smugness was meant.
	can anyone help me id this tune? it goes thwap thwap boom tch boom tch boom tch. Qui a laissez sortir les chiens!

07-31-2003, 06:12 PM	#30
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Saints maybe interested in Big Daddy. Lord, Just letting LummOx know that my last post was for you and not him. His article tended to support what you have been saying and I was just saying that the article was biased. No disrespect intended. Just debating.......that\'s it.
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209