Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

So I think we both can agree that's not bad compensation and affordable.

Just trying to show people can and do change... especially if they want to win.

It would be ideal for him to at least play out a year before he does so though. But even he wants one right away, looking at his current contract, a slight raise wouldn't really be a problem. He certainly wouldn't get more than the 17 million that Tony Gonzales got in KC as an extension.

In isolation or not, he's production is well worth that risk. He's not as bad as some are making him out to be.

Of course not. Our TE's have made plays for us... but they've also had plenty of costly drops and really done stretch the middle of the field for us. Acquiring a dependable guy like Shockey will make everyone's job easier.


Honestly it would be great if we could get Shockey for the right price... but if we didn't make a move for him, we'll be just fine. For me, it's more of me wanting you to see that both sides of the ball need to be addressed just not the defense. I've agreed with everything you've said this offseason besides the criticizing of any suggestion that we could use more help on offense.

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

In general: the title of Professor is an actual job description. University professors make their living researching and analyzing information.

As a Saints fan: I've been with the Saints since I was a kid. A season ticket holder until I left for college. I'm invested.

I'm really doing nothing more than any avid fantasy footballer would do. It's just that the Saints are my fantasy football team.

SFIAH

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

Again I'm not so sure anymore. With point differential being an even stronger predictor.

The last two years have thrown the proverbial wrench into the works. Indy's 2006 regular season defense was awful. Sanders seems to be a singular guy that makes all the difference. They played like a top 10 defense in the playoffs. In the regular season they gave up 22.5 PPG. In the playoffs, it was 16.2. If that were projected onto the regular season, it would have been a top 3 defensive number. Same with the Giants: 21.6 in the regular season, 16.2 in the 4 playoff games. Again projected onto the regular season, that would have made the Giants tops in the league.

You have to have both excellent offense and defense to be successful. Pittsburgh in 2005 was a perfect example: top 10 offense and top 10 defense in the regular season. Won from the #6 playoff spot.

For the Saints to find balance, they needed to work on the defense. and maintain the offense.

What I'm saying is that improving the offense without a quantum leap in the performance of the defense wasn't going to be as helpful as keeping the offensive performance about the same, and vastly improving the defense.

As you said earlier it's a necessary but not sufficient condition. You have to have it, but if you offense is woeful, you cannot compete for the championship. See the 2007 Titans as the poster child for that argument.

All good possibilities for further research. It would take some digging to correlate.

But I think that's only a part of it. Playing keep away can certainly help your defense. But if they give up a TD over the top in 30 seconds, it won't matter how long you hold the ball.

At the end of the day, the defense has to be able to hold its own against most competition. And I think that trends towards "better" defenses by whatever category you want to measure.

The defense argument is somewhat sideways to the Shockey argument because the Saints (at least on paper) look like they've greatly improved their defense.

If any two of the cost/character arguments can be resolved, then Shockey would be worth it. But with all of them in play, IMO it will cost too much for the perceived return.

SFIAH

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

Fair enough on the Shockey point.

Here's my take on the points allowed point: it is a good predictor because it measures both defense and offense - and it almost always indicates being good at both.

The point differential measure measures the same thing, I think.

Here is another avenue of inquiry: how big a margin is there between the SB team's defensive ranking and offensive ranking? For example, take the SB team's defensive rank, then subtract the offensive ranking. If the number is usually negative, then D is more important; if the number is usually positive, then the O is more important. (Other things equal.) Just a thought, though I like my earlier suggestion better.

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

Also,

I think we agree here. My point was playing keep away would improve a team's "points allowed" score, which is good. This is like the fact that the Defense can score. Keeping the ball away isn't sufficient for winning, in the same way not scoring on O isn't sufficient for losing.

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

as long as shockey eats crayfish when he gets here i have no problem......

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

If Payton feels he could help the team, then I hope they can get him.

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

Jeremy Shockey: Saints Still Interested

RotoWire.com Staff - RotoWire.com
May 5, 10:28 am EDT

Update: The Saints are still interested in acquiring Shockey from the Giants, the Times-Picayune reports.

Recommendation: Head coach Sean Payton apparently wants a deal to be done desperately, so expect the Saints to pull out a few stops to acquire the unhappy tight end.

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

I'd give them a fifth next year, thats it. They should have took the original deal of a second straight up!!! Screw em

shockeys future up for grabs.......
 

Kevin Gilbride says Jeremy Shockey's future up for grabs
BY RALPH Vacchiano
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER

Saturday, May 10th 2008, 9:55 PM

Kevin Gilbride recently told Jeremy Shockey he wants him back as a featured part of his offense. But the Giants' offensive coordinator admitted he doesn't know if that will happen.

"It's so nebulous right now, you just have no idea," Gilbride said. "Right now he's on our team. We're planning on him being there. He'll be one of the guys that we'll look to feature and one of the guys that we'll look to depend on. Hopefully he'll be here in good spirits and ready to do the things that we know he's capable of doing. But who knows? It's certainly beyond my hands."

Gilbride wouldn't reveal the details of their conversation, but he did say he spoke to Shockey to tell him "I hope he comes back, and if he does come back I'm looking forward to working with him, and I think his coaches and teammates all feel like I do, that we'll be a better football team because he's here. I just wanted to make sure he understood that."

What Gilbride declined to answer is whether the tight end, who requested a trade before the draft, wanted to return to the Giants. Several members of the organization - players, coaches and members of the front office - have reached out to Shockey to let him know he's wanted. But Shockey has yet to publicly make his desires or intentions clear.

The Giants were offered a second- and a fifth-round pick by the New Orleans Saints for Shockey, but they declined. They have not ruled out trading him, especially if the Saints were to offer a first-round pick, but they don't expect a deal to happen. Shockey, who has also demanded a new contract, has been working out on his own in Miami. He's not due back at Giants Stadium until the team's mandatory mini-camp, which begins on June 11.