OT is the only area of our team thats MIGHT have the depth to afford a major hit. I do not see any other area we can really afford to do something and have the giants go for it. I am just not seeing it. Picks? #2 is in limbo with vilma. A mid round pick next year and a second in 2010? I am not seeing any other way but with a player. Or paying them a higher second pick to differ the higher pick till one year later.

The whole "the Giants won because Shockey wasn't playing" argument holds no water whatsoever. What if Bush were to get hurt next year, and we made it to the playoffs? Would you say that the reason we made it was because he wasn't playing? You can't say it. Well you can, but it makes no sense.

It holds gallons of water. What proof do you need that we don't need him to win a SB? He didn't win it for NY. NY went on to win it without his crappy self-serving attitude. He wasn't even on the sidelines during the games.

Don't try and compare apples to oranges (SB or playoffs) but use the same situation if we win the SB without Bush you can easily say the same thing, whats wrong with that... it would be fact.

It holds gallons of water. What proof do you need that we don't need him to win a SB? He didn't win it for NY. NY went on to win it without his crappy self-serving attitude. He wasn't even on the sidelines during the games.

Don't try and compare apples to oranges (SB or playoffs) but use the same situation if we win the SB without Bush you can easily say the same thing, whats wrong with that... it would be fact.

How can you even say that, like his team winning the SB has ANYTHING to do with the Saints need him to win the SB.

You see, we could have been the #1 Offense last year, but just because we are the BEST does not mean that we can't get BETTER. Ford used to have that attitude, now they are trying to build cars the way Toyota does, so they can catch up in sales. When you hit #1 and stop trying to get even better, you get passed up.

I (obviously) can't say this enough, Shockey makes us BETTER. Not because Shockey is the greatest TE ever, but because he changes how defenses play against us, and he changes how opposing coaches plan for us. Shockey helps us the MOST by allowing us to choose the ground in the battle. He forces the opposing coaches make the plan that they HAVE to, not the plan that they WANT to.

Not too many people seem to realize the significance of this. Shockey starts helping us win before the game is even played.

As far as being a "Team Cancer", everyone gripes about their jobs. Seriously, as if you have never griped about your idiot employers. I don't CARE how much he makes, if I was surrounded by idiots I would say it out loud. He is not a thug or a criminal, he has no known substance abuse problems, he will only be a problem to a dysfunctional team.

Shockey makes us better. Better is good. There is no getting around this point. You don't have to like it, but you need to accept it.

He can say this because the way his team won the SB is the way that the SB is won virtually every year. Quick: name the last TE that was the SB MVP. I'll wait.

I actually agree with that sentiment. But the numbers are simple:

#4 offense
#26 defense

So where do you need to get better?

But the #1 offense made it to the SB last year. And they walked off the field without the trophy.

The numbers don't lie. SB offenses are all over the place. But SB defenses are either consistently great throughout the season, or get hot in the playoffs. But whichever team is playing the best defense in January wins the SB virtually every time.

I never really challenged the talent part of the equation. My only question is that why doesn't Shockey's production match those matchup problems? Guys like Winslow, Gates, and Gonzales get 90+ catches in a good year. Shockey has never been close to that.

Now here's where we part ways. Loudmouth malcontents MAKES teams dysfunctional. They create drama. They cause teammates to take sides, to have to defend positions, to lose focus. They take away attention from what's important, the team winning football games, and places it upon themselves.

The Saints don't have any of those types of guys right now. Bringing in Shockey can make that old adage come true:

One bad apple spoils the bunch.

There are three aspects to this better thing and you've only really addressed one:

1) Talent. A positive there.
2) Fit. Big negative there.
3) Cost. It's going to take some cheese to get the guy in here. We're going to have to give up a significant draft pick or a productive player (or both) to get him.

Two out of three of these need to be a positive to make it work and right now I see it as two thumbs down.

Now the really funny thing is that if I bring another talented malcontent into the discussion I'd get a completely different reaction.

Pacman Jones.

Now I wouldn't bring him in either for exactly the same reasons but in fact Dallas got a steal on the ledger sheet:

1) talent. I think that's been shown.
2) Fit. Triple negative here.
3) Cost. Nothing. A lowly conditional future draft pick with no bonus money in the contract.

If dude doesn't work out, he gets cut and it costs Dallas nothing.

The Saints will not be able to say the same with Shockey. He's a costly, risky gamble for production that has not yet to be shown to be much better than the production we've seen from the tight ends on staff.

One last point, from a production standpoint I really think that Shockey has a bigger stature in fans minds than the numbers suggest. Over his career he's been averaging about 60 catches, 600 yards, and 4 TD a year. Compare to Gonzales who averages 75 catches, 900 yards, and 6 TD a year or Gates who averages 68 catches, 875 yards and nearly 9 TDs a year.

So what I see is a moderately talented TE with a questionable locker room presence and a really high price tag.

And you wonder why I argue that this supposed trade is a really bad idea.

SFIAH

The whole "the Giants won because Shockey wasn't playing" argument holds no water whatsoever.

What if Bush were to get hurt next year, and we made it to the playoffs? Would you say that the reason we made it was because he wasn't playing? You can't say it. Well you can, but it makes no sense.