shockey to saints trade stalls.. Update on Pg 11

JKool · 04-22-2008, 11:46 AM

I'm not really sold on Shockey as a huge improvement to our offense. It seems to me that Colston runs a lot of routes that a TE might. We don't need two such players, do we?

However, that said, someone please make it sound sensible that we turn down Harper and our 2nd round pick for Shockey? That seems like a deal for us! Shockey is a proven player at a position of need for us. Harper is an ok safety. Furthermore, in the abstract the value of a Safety and a TE are about the same. If we're just going to take a TE with our 2nd rounder, then why not get Shockey and try and pick up another marginal Safety in the 3rd or 4th?

Speculation: maybe the whole Shockey thing is just a part of a plan to trade up with our #1? I don't see how we can trade up from 10 to 2 without giving away the farm. Perhaps our 10 and Shockey and something else get us what we need to get up to 2 overall? Just a thought.

pakowitz · 04-22-2008, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by JKool

However, that said, someone please make it sound sensible that we turn down Harper and our 2nd round pick for Shockey? That seems like a deal for us!

it isnt.. giving up a 2nd and a starter for a player who the giants dont really want anyway, dispite the reports that they do, is high.. everyone knows they dont...

id give a 2nd straight up or harper and a 6th.. anything more then that and they are trying to push to hard.. that being said.. i think that the deal will happen probably when the saints are on the clock in the 2nd round..

Memnoch_TP · 04-25-2008, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by JKool

I'm not really sold on Shockey as a huge improvement to our offense. It seems to me that Colston runs a lot of routes that a TE might. We don't need two such players, do we?

We let our #1 receiver do what the #1 receiver does, instead of what the TE does, while not losing a major amount of ability on the TE routes.

Plus, the intangible benefits. That is one more proven player on the Saints offense that defensive coaches have to contend with. Eric Johnson and Billy Miller do NOT send shivers down the backs of opposing coaches. Shockey may not cause fear, but he will garner some respect from opposing coaches. Especially in the redzone.

04-22-2008, 11:46 AM	#1
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Re: shockey to saints? New Update on Page 6!! I'm not really sold on Shockey as a huge improvement to our offense. It seems to me that Colston runs a lot of routes that a TE might. We don't need two such players, do we? However, that said, someone please make it sound sensible that we turn down Harper and our 2nd round pick for Shockey? That seems like a deal for us! Shockey is a proven player at a position of need for us. Harper is an ok safety. Furthermore, in the abstract the value of a Safety and a TE are about the same. If we're just going to take a TE with our 2nd rounder, then why not get Shockey and try and pick up another marginal Safety in the 3rd or 4th? Speculation: maybe the whole Shockey thing is just a part of a plan to trade up with our #1? I don't see how we can trade up from 10 to 2 without giving away the farm. Perhaps our 10 and Shockey and something else get us what we need to get up to 2 overall? Just a thought.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

04-22-2008, 12:06 PM	#2
pakowitz The Dark Overlord Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,450	Re: shockey to saints? New Update on Page 6!! Originally Posted by JKool However, that said, someone please make it sound sensible that we turn down Harper and our 2nd round pick for Shockey? That seems like a deal for us! it isnt.. giving up a 2nd and a starter for a player who the giants dont really want anyway, dispite the reports that they do, is high.. everyone knows they dont... id give a 2nd straight up or harper and a 6th.. anything more then that and they are trying to push to hard.. that being said.. i think that the deal will happen probably when the saints are on the clock in the 2nd round..

04-25-2008, 10:59 PM	#3
Memnoch_TP Logic Troll Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Southern Louisiana Posts: 565	Re: shockey to saints? New Update on Page 6!! Originally Posted by JKool I'm not really sold on Shockey as a huge improvement to our offense. It seems to me that Colston runs a lot of routes that a TE might. We don't need two such players, do we? We let our #1 receiver do what the #1 receiver does, instead of what the TE does, while not losing a major amount of ability on the TE routes. Plus, the intangible benefits. That is one more proven player on the Saints offense that defensive coaches have to contend with. Eric Johnson and Billy Miller do NOT send shivers down the backs of opposing coaches. Shockey may not cause fear, but he will garner some respect from opposing coaches. Especially in the redzone.