Jeremy Shockey

SoulStar · 05-08-2008, 03:17 AM

Im sorry, but I see the need to post on this topic.

For those of you who are against shockey joining the saints think of this?

Shockey had his best year as a rookie when Payton was there!

Now I know some of you say so what, but also keep in mind that once Payton got his hands on Jason Witten of the Cowboys that man became a bigger threat on the field than T.O. If you look at all the cowboys killer plays the past few seasons it's Witten who is making the catch for Romo.

When the Pats, Giants, and Philly whipped up on the Cowboys this year Witten was a non factor. When the Saints spanked the cowboys two years ago, Payton made sure that Romo's safety blanket of Witten was accounted for.

Payton knows offense, and he knows how to use a TE to the make him a game breaker so to speak. If the man wants Shockey, then get the deal done, but do not trade away anything more than 3rd for him.

We all know DEF is the path to the Superbowl, but if you can make this deal for shockey then you cant pass on it.

Trust in Payton.

jeanpierre · 05-08-2008, 07:14 AM

Re: TOo 49er's Offense and Defense

Yeah the 49'ers had what is affectionately known as playmakers but they didn't consistently shut down offenses week in and week out...

I seem they struggled against teams such as the Bengals for example...

But the 49'ers and Rams as you have pointed out had far superior offenses to their defense; and when you put points on the board at the rate the 80's 49ers and 90's Rams did, then the opposition has to anyone? anyone? anyone?

Go one dimensional...that's right and then you can have your 2-3playmakers in the right position for turnovers and possible score conversions...

But the point is you take what is an very good offense and make it great; this is consistent with the point I've made that you take what you got and maximize it...

And while the 49ers had some HOF'er on Defense, they were not a walk on the field and shut the opposition down defense that some of the good teams had...

Further, the Rams example you brought up further illustrates my point about taking an offense to the next level and letting the Rams defense get its turnovers; seriously, you think the Rams defense in its last run of success scared opposing offenses?!?

JKool · 05-08-2008, 10:11 AM

Memnoch, do not fear for my sanity. I did qualify with "on this point", and I was referring to the claim about the 9ers defense. SFIAH is a fine writer, and has some convincing arguments, but I'm not sucked in (on this point) just yet.

SFIAH, nice posts. I enjoyed them a good deal. I'm still almost on board with the Anti-Shockey sentiment. IMO the strongest arguments are the "cost" argument and the "chemistry" argument. The second hasn't convinced me yet (and might never), and it is hard to tell what the cost will be (yet). However, I like this "cost" concern: Shockey's contract will make it difficult to get substantial (and desirable) contracts with Smith and Colston - those two are certainly worth more than Shockey.

Regarding the "scoring defense", I'm still a bit unclear. Is this just the "points allowed" category? It is interesting to me that such a stat is a good predictor of championship success. It is also interesting to me since I think this stat also reflects the success of the offense (which may be your point, I can't tell yet). It reflects the success of the offense, since as we all know, a clock-grinding offense keeps the opponent's offense off the field. Maybe that is your point about the running game?

So, overall, I'm not convinced that points allows is a purely defensive statistic (like yards allowed, third downs allowed, and the like, are). Thus, I'm skeptical that "scoring defense" is a good indicator of how good a defense is (but I may be misunderstanding), and, in turn, I now question the simple (though I concede there may be a more complex way of understanding this) version of "defenses win championships".

SaintFanInATLHELL · 05-08-2008, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by JKool

SFIAH, nice posts. I enjoyed them a good deal. I'm still almost on board with the Anti-Shockey sentiment. IMO the strongest arguments are the "cost" argument and the "chemistry" argument. The second hasn't convinced me yet (and might never), and it is hard to tell what the cost will be (yet). However, I like this "cost" concern: Shockey's contract will make it difficult to get substantial (and desirable) contracts with Smith and Colston - those two are certainly worth more than Shockey.

I think it's stickier than that. Shockey is under contract. Actually it's pretty cap friendly. He's going to want it reworked. The question is when, and how long will he be satisfied to play under the existing contract.

These are all unknowns. The Saints would be perfectly within their rights to say: "You signed it. Play it out." But the problem I see is that if this, or anything else, makes Shockey unhappy, then what effect will it have in the locker room.

There has to be clarity on both sides on how that would work. Ideally for the team it would be "Show us 2 years of production, then we'll get the huge contract to you."

But I'm unsure if that would work.

Regarding the "scoring defense", I'm still a bit unclear. Is this just the "points allowed" category? It is interesting to me that such a stat is a good predictor of championship success.

Yup. Since 1970 and the merger, only 4 SB teams have been outside the top in regular season "points allowed": the 1976 and 1983 Raiders, the 2006 Colts, and the 2007 Giants.

BTW offensive performances were nearly as strong. These teams finished outside the top 10 in points scored the season they won:

82 redskins (strike shortened), 90 giants, 00 ravens, 02 bucs, 03 pats, 07 giants.

I believe the 07 giants are the first SB team in this period to finish outside the top 10 on both sides of the ball and still win.

Looking at the offense started to point to point differential. It seems to be the strongest indicator of all of championship success. Only one team who won the SB since 1970 fell outside the top 10 in point differential for the regular season: The 2007 New York Giants.

It is also interesting to me since I think this stat also reflects the success of the offense (which may be your point, I can't tell yet). It reflects the success of the offense, since as we all know, a clock-grinding offense keeps the opponent's offense off the field. Maybe that is your point about the running game?

Going back through it again, I'm just not so sure anymore.

For example in Dan Marino's career with the Dolphins, the offense was consistently excellent. But the only year they went to the SB, the defense was outstanding too. There were other years where the defense was up and down, but they never had the same success.

So, overall, I'm not convinced that points allows is a purely defensive statistic (like yards allowed, third downs allowed, and the like, are). Thus, I'm skeptical that "scoring defense" is a good indicator of how good a defense is (but I may be misunderstanding), and, in turn, I now question the simple (though I concede there may be a more complex way of understanding this) version of "defenses win championships".

It looks like I need to rethink this. Almost always SB winning teams have bothe excellent offense and defense and are near the top in point differential.

You need both.

SFIAH

JKool · 05-08-2008, 10:14 AM

SFIAH, I'm glad you're willing to capitulate on the "production" argument. I think a case could be made, but the work wouldn't be worth it. The other arguments don't rely on claiming we already have a "Shockey equivalent" on the roster (even if the equivalent is made up of some sort of rotation); thus, you don't need this claim to press your case.

JKool · 05-08-2008, 10:16 AM

PS - Memnoch, "waffle house mathematics", I like it.

saintsfan1976 · 05-08-2008, 10:23 AM

Having Shockey means opposing defenses actually have to cover our TE and not double Colston and Reggie or spy Drew.

CantonLegend · 05-08-2008, 10:31 AM

SFIAH, i think that the cost argument is worthy....i disagree with the chemistry tho.....every team brings in new starters every year....they are in the NFL so they all have personality problems...think about it..when u were in school....the best players we kinda cocky..it happens.....ne way...shockey is a great TE and he hasnt been allowed to show off his talents...thats like u knowing the answer to a question in school and u raise ur hand but the teacher never calls on u....im not saying shockey is the answer to everything....but he would be happy and he would shut up...he would fall under brees' massive leadership and sit pretty....like moss...if he has a good QB to get him the ball when he is open....he will be happy....he may still do stupid stuff like point at the camera when we miss field goals but he wont talk as much because our locker room is chill all the time

papz · 05-08-2008, 10:25 AM

So let's say it's only a 2nd round pick? That's not a bad cost to pay for a ProBowl TE is it? The just drafted a quality S via the draft... I wouldn't think they'd have a big need for Harper anymore.

Now if we're going to talk about money, you were in favor of signing Moss and Shockey wouldn't cost nowhere near as much as Moss would have. Has Shockey even asked for a contract extension yet? Let's say he does, I'm going to use Daniel Graham's contract as a barometer... 30 million for 5 years with 15 million in guaranteed money. That's really not that bad and remember that the league's cap has been going up every year.

Now if we're talking about team chemistry, maybe a change of scenery will serve him Shockey well. There's no guarantee he won't be a "class act" here. Who would have thought Moss would become boy scout once he arrived in New England? He knows Payton... he was productive under Payton. I'm sure his familiarity with Payton and his increased production in our system will keep him happy.

Obviously cost is the major issue here... but it's not like we're trying to acquire Antonio Gates here. I'm sure everyone understands the "Defense wins Championships" cliche, but it doesn't mean the offense should be ignored. Just because they're playing at a high level, doesn't mean they will continue to do so. Adding playmakers will only help us maintain our level of success instead of letting the league catch up to us.

SaintFanInATLHELL · 05-08-2008, 11:46 AM

Thanks for talking about costs papz.

Originally Posted by papz

So let's say it's only a 2nd round pick? That's not a bad cost to pay for a ProBowl TE is it? The just drafted a quality S via the draft... I wouldn't think they'd have a big need for Harper anymore.

Maybe for just the 2nd rounder.

Now if we're going to talk about money, you were in favor of signing Moss and Shockey wouldn't cost nowhere near as much as Moss would have. Has Shockey even asked for a contract extension yet? Let's say he does, I'm going to use Daniel Graham's contract as a barometer... 30 million for 5 years with 15 million in guaranteed money. That's really not that bad and remember that the league's cap has been going up every year.

I did advocate for Moss. As a free agent he would have only cost money. Still iffy on the locker room. Much drama in the past. Quit in Oakland. Seemed to be a model citizen in New England.
Had better production on the field than any wide receiver in history.

As for those numbers, that's close to his current contract (5 years, $26.3 million, looks like about $14 million guaranteed of which he's already collected about $10 million in signing and option bonuses)

Now if we're talking about team chemistry, maybe a change of scenery will serve him Shockey well. There's no guarantee he won't be a "class act" here. Who would have thought Moss would become boy scout once he arrived in New England? He knows Payton... he was productive under Payton. I'm sure his familiarity with Payton and his increased production in our system will keep him happy.

In isolation this may be worth the risk. But it isn't in isolation.

Obviously cost is the major issue here... but it's not like we're trying to acquire Antonio Gates here. I'm sure everyone understands the "Defense wins Championships" cliche, but it doesn't mean the offense should be ignored. Just because they're playing at a high level, doesn't mean they will continue to do so. Adding playmakers will only help us maintain our level of success instead of letting the league catch up to us.

On offense we're talking about the TE position because it's one of the few that doesn't have a superstar in place.

Does a productive offense really need a superstar at every position? We're having this discussion as if our TEs didn't make plays or contribute

Just poking around I found this Giants fans thread on the guy. If you get a chance take a read:

Feeling bad for Shockey - NJ.com: Ledger on the Giants

SFIAH

05-08-2008, 03:17 AM	#1
SoulStar 100th Post Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Arlington Tx Posts: 157	Re: payton wants shockey................... Im sorry, but I see the need to post on this topic. For those of you who are against shockey joining the saints think of this? Shockey had his best year as a rookie when Payton was there! Now I know some of you say so what, but also keep in mind that once Payton got his hands on Jason Witten of the Cowboys that man became a bigger threat on the field than T.O. If you look at all the cowboys killer plays the past few seasons it's Witten who is making the catch for Romo. When the Pats, Giants, and Philly whipped up on the Cowboys this year Witten was a non factor. When the Saints spanked the cowboys two years ago, Payton made sure that Romo's safety blanket of Witten was accounted for. Payton knows offense, and he knows how to use a TE to the make him a game breaker so to speak. If the man wants Shockey, then get the deal done, but do not trade away anything more than 3rd for him. We all know DEF is the path to the Superbowl, but if you can make this deal for shockey then you cant pass on it. Trust in Payton.
	You say that were nuts for pulling for them, you call them sorry, you wonder why we deal with them year after year. Well New Orleans is like no other city in the world, and no fans are anything like saint fans.

05-08-2008, 07:14 AM	#2
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Re: payton wants shockey................... Re: TOo 49er's Offense and Defense Yeah the 49'ers had what is affectionately known as playmakers but they didn't consistently shut down offenses week in and week out... I seem they struggled against teams such as the Bengals for example... But the 49'ers and Rams as you have pointed out had far superior offenses to their defense; and when you put points on the board at the rate the 80's 49ers and 90's Rams did, then the opposition has to anyone? anyone? anyone? Go one dimensional...that's right and then you can have your 2-3playmakers in the right position for turnovers and possible score conversions... But the point is you take what is an very good offense and make it great; this is consistent with the point I've made that you take what you got and maximize it... And while the 49ers had some HOF'er on Defense, they were not a walk on the field and shut the opposition down defense that some of the good teams had... Further, the Rams example you brought up further illustrates my point about taking an offense to the next level and letting the Rams defense get its turnovers; seriously, you think the Rams defense in its last run of success scared opposing offenses?!?
	It's not that my way is the right way, I just make the right way my way...

05-08-2008, 10:11 AM	#3
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Re: payton wants shockey................... Memnoch, do not fear for my sanity. I did qualify with "on this point", and I was referring to the claim about the 9ers defense. SFIAH is a fine writer, and has some convincing arguments, but I'm not sucked in (on this point) just yet. SFIAH, nice posts. I enjoyed them a good deal. I'm still almost on board with the Anti-Shockey sentiment. IMO the strongest arguments are the "cost" argument and the "chemistry" argument. The second hasn't convinced me yet (and might never), and it is hard to tell what the cost will be (yet). However, I like this "cost" concern: Shockey's contract will make it difficult to get substantial (and desirable) contracts with Smith and Colston - those two are certainly worth more than Shockey. Regarding the "scoring defense", I'm still a bit unclear. Is this just the "points allowed" category? It is interesting to me that such a stat is a good predictor of championship success. It is also interesting to me since I think this stat also reflects the success of the offense (which may be your point, I can't tell yet). It reflects the success of the offense, since as we all know, a clock-grinding offense keeps the opponent's offense off the field. Maybe that is your point about the running game? So, overall, I'm not convinced that points allows is a purely defensive statistic (like yards allowed, third downs allowed, and the like, are). Thus, I'm skeptical that "scoring defense" is a good indicator of how good a defense is (but I may be misunderstanding), and, in turn, I now question the simple (though I concede there may be a more complex way of understanding this) version of "defenses win championships".
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

05-08-2008, 11:21 AM	#4
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,783	Re: payton wants shockey................... Originally Posted by JKool SFIAH, nice posts. I enjoyed them a good deal. I'm still almost on board with the Anti-Shockey sentiment. IMO the strongest arguments are the "cost" argument and the "chemistry" argument. The second hasn't convinced me yet (and might never), and it is hard to tell what the cost will be (yet). However, I like this "cost" concern: Shockey's contract will make it difficult to get substantial (and desirable) contracts with Smith and Colston - those two are certainly worth more than Shockey. I think it's stickier than that. Shockey is under contract. Actually it's pretty cap friendly. He's going to want it reworked. The question is when, and how long will he be satisfied to play under the existing contract. These are all unknowns. The Saints would be perfectly within their rights to say: "You signed it. Play it out." But the problem I see is that if this, or anything else, makes Shockey unhappy, then what effect will it have in the locker room. There has to be clarity on both sides on how that would work. Ideally for the team it would be "Show us 2 years of production, then we'll get the huge contract to you." But I'm unsure if that would work. Regarding the "scoring defense", I'm still a bit unclear. Is this just the "points allowed" category? It is interesting to me that such a stat is a good predictor of championship success. Yup. Since 1970 and the merger, only 4 SB teams have been outside the top in regular season "points allowed": the 1976 and 1983 Raiders, the 2006 Colts, and the 2007 Giants. BTW offensive performances were nearly as strong. These teams finished outside the top 10 in points scored the season they won: 82 redskins (strike shortened), 90 giants, 00 ravens, 02 bucs, 03 pats, 07 giants. I believe the 07 giants are the first SB team in this period to finish outside the top 10 on both sides of the ball and still win. Looking at the offense started to point to point differential. It seems to be the strongest indicator of all of championship success. Only one team who won the SB since 1970 fell outside the top 10 in point differential for the regular season: The 2007 New York Giants. It is also interesting to me since I think this stat also reflects the success of the offense (which may be your point, I can't tell yet). It reflects the success of the offense, since as we all know, a clock-grinding offense keeps the opponent's offense off the field. Maybe that is your point about the running game? Going back through it again, I'm just not so sure anymore. For example in Dan Marino's career with the Dolphins, the offense was consistently excellent. But the only year they went to the SB, the defense was outstanding too. There were other years where the defense was up and down, but they never had the same success. So, overall, I'm not convinced that points allows is a purely defensive statistic (like yards allowed, third downs allowed, and the like, are). Thus, I'm skeptical that "scoring defense" is a good indicator of how good a defense is (but I may be misunderstanding), and, in turn, I now question the simple (though I concede there may be a more complex way of understanding this) version of "defenses win championships". It looks like I need to rethink this. Almost always SB winning teams have bothe excellent offense and defense and are near the top in point differential. You need both. SFIAH
	Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.

05-08-2008, 10:14 AM	#5
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Re: payton wants shockey................... SFIAH, I'm glad you're willing to capitulate on the "production" argument. I think a case could be made, but the work wouldn't be worth it. The other arguments don't rely on claiming we already have a "Shockey equivalent" on the roster (even if the equivalent is made up of some sort of rotation); thus, you don't need this claim to press your case.

05-08-2008, 10:16 AM	#6
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Re: payton wants shockey................... PS - Memnoch, "waffle house mathematics", I like it.

05-08-2008, 10:23 AM	#7
saintsfan1976 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 10,996 Blog Entries: 3	Re: payton wants shockey................... Having Shockey means opposing defenses actually have to cover our TE and not double Colston and Reggie or spy Drew.

05-08-2008, 10:31 AM	#8
CantonLegend 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,685 Blog Entries: 2	Re: payton wants shockey................... SFIAH, i think that the cost argument is worthy....i disagree with the chemistry tho.....every team brings in new starters every year....they are in the NFL so they all have personality problems...think about it..when u were in school....the best players we kinda cocky..it happens.....ne way...shockey is a great TE and he hasnt been allowed to show off his talents...thats like u knowing the answer to a question in school and u raise ur hand but the teacher never calls on u....im not saying shockey is the answer to everything....but he would be happy and he would shut up...he would fall under brees' massive leadership and sit pretty....like moss...if he has a good QB to get him the ball when he is open....he will be happy....he may still do stupid stuff like point at the camera when we miss field goals but he wont talk as much because our locker room is chill all the time
	"deal with it or you can go play the saints and get trounced by 30 and you won't have to worry about it."-colin cowherd

05-08-2008, 10:25 AM	#9
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,774	Re: payton wants shockey................... So let's say it's only a 2nd round pick? That's not a bad cost to pay for a ProBowl TE is it? The just drafted a quality S via the draft... I wouldn't think they'd have a big need for Harper anymore. Now if we're going to talk about money, you were in favor of signing Moss and Shockey wouldn't cost nowhere near as much as Moss would have. Has Shockey even asked for a contract extension yet? Let's say he does, I'm going to use Daniel Graham's contract as a barometer... 30 million for 5 years with 15 million in guaranteed money. That's really not that bad and remember that the league's cap has been going up every year. Now if we're talking about team chemistry, maybe a change of scenery will serve him Shockey well. There's no guarantee he won't be a "class act" here. Who would have thought Moss would become boy scout once he arrived in New England? He knows Payton... he was productive under Payton. I'm sure his familiarity with Payton and his increased production in our system will keep him happy. Obviously cost is the major issue here... but it's not like we're trying to acquire Antonio Gates here. I'm sure everyone understands the "Defense wins Championships" cliche, but it doesn't mean the offense should be ignored. Just because they're playing at a high level, doesn't mean they will continue to do so. Adding playmakers will only help us maintain our level of success instead of letting the league catch up to us.
	Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege. All little common sense goes a long way.

05-08-2008, 11:46 AM	#10
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,783	Re: payton wants shockey................... Thanks for talking about costs papz. Originally Posted by papz So let's say it's only a 2nd round pick? That's not a bad cost to pay for a ProBowl TE is it? The just drafted a quality S via the draft... I wouldn't think they'd have a big need for Harper anymore. Maybe for just the 2nd rounder. Now if we're going to talk about money, you were in favor of signing Moss and Shockey wouldn't cost nowhere near as much as Moss would have. Has Shockey even asked for a contract extension yet? Let's say he does, I'm going to use Daniel Graham's contract as a barometer... 30 million for 5 years with 15 million in guaranteed money. That's really not that bad and remember that the league's cap has been going up every year. I did advocate for Moss. As a free agent he would have only cost money. Still iffy on the locker room. Much drama in the past. Quit in Oakland. Seemed to be a model citizen in New England. Had better production on the field than any wide receiver in history. As for those numbers, that's close to his current contract (5 years, $26.3 million, looks like about $14 million guaranteed of which he's already collected about $10 million in signing and option bonuses) Now if we're talking about team chemistry, maybe a change of scenery will serve him Shockey well. There's no guarantee he won't be a "class act" here. Who would have thought Moss would become boy scout once he arrived in New England? He knows Payton... he was productive under Payton. I'm sure his familiarity with Payton and his increased production in our system will keep him happy. In isolation this may be worth the risk. But it isn't in isolation. Obviously cost is the major issue here... but it's not like we're trying to acquire Antonio Gates here. I'm sure everyone understands the "Defense wins Championships" cliche, but it doesn't mean the offense should be ignored. Just because they're playing at a high level, doesn't mean they will continue to do so. Adding playmakers will only help us maintain our level of success instead of letting the league catch up to us. On offense we're talking about the TE position because it's one of the few that doesn't have a superstar in place. Does a productive offense really need a superstar at every position? We're having this discussion as if our TEs didn't make plays or contribute Just poking around I found this Giants fans thread on the guy. If you get a chance take a read: Feeling bad for Shockey - NJ.com: Ledger on the Giants SFIAH
	Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.