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

this is pretty much what I think every time I see a post telling me how bad picking up Shockey would be.

drew bledsoe got injured in 00 and tom brady led the patriots to a super bowl win. i guess drew bledsoe is terrible and a locker room cancer!

lol. so silly.

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

please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't believe the giants would ever have made the playoffs without the play of shockey in some games. shockey had a part in not one, but a few games that the giants won in order to even get them to the wild card playoffs......
so, how important was he? or, how unimportant was he?
how about some stats.........

Michael Eisen - Story - 1.1 Giants Stats Review - Giants.com
Game On: Jeremy Shockey
Giants Bits | New York Giants Blog » 2007 » September
Michael Eisen - Story - 12.18 Tuesday Stats Review - Giants.com

and giants forum talking about him....
New York Giants Message Boards - Dealing with a possible reality that Shockey is a Saint

now, one can argue shockey did not do it alone, and i'd agree 100%, but
i do believe without his play in the regular season the giants would never have got to the wild card spot, and the patriots would be 19-0..
so, put that in your pipe and smoke it.............smitty

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

Seriously. I mean seriously. I think that seriously.
Why you ask?

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

Re: Throwing his Coach under the bus...

Coughlin was getting thrown under the bus, but even he admitted he had to change to accomplish what he did...

Coaches like Coughlin and Mora have limited their success because they wanted some to "fit" a system...

Walsh and Belichick have multiple Superbowls because they take their system and modify it around their players; latest example, Moss, Malcontent Extreme, has probably the best season a WR ever has and his attitude suddenly changes...and why?!? They got him the ball and he knew he'd deliver...

Shockey knows he's a diff-maker at his position and he just wants to show it...

I'd like to know who'd be three options ahead of Shockey on offense...

Eric Johnson isn't exactly a blocking threat, so when he's in, well they know; and Billy Miller could be upgraded, but he's not blowing people up on the line...

Shockey is the most complete TE in the league and Payton will be able to maximize his talents because he's not caught up in putting him into his specific cookie mould...

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

I'll summarize the last two pages of responses.

Offense winning the SB: If the defense didn't hold NE to 14 points, there would have been no comeback.

Randy Moss getting the ball: Brees is going to distribute the ball. He's done it his whole career.

Shockey a needed cog in the Giants offense: then why are they shopping him in a trade.

Not a problem in the locker room: That's the Saints locker room right now. Want an example. A quote from Deuce discussing bringing in Soft Alexander:

Alexander to visit Saints after Bengals- NOLA.com

Now that's a class act. I actually looked for something from Shockey about Boss. The only thing I found was the other way around.

Boss planning on Shockey’s return - Utica, NY 13501 - The Observer-Dispatch

Ya'll can be dismissive of team chemistry if you like. But you won't like the results when you bring trouble into the locker room.

BTW problems at work? Got em. 3 people have quit over them. Personally I don't find it very productive.

SFIAH

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

People do change... as Moss did in New England. So why can't Shockey should he become a Saint? For not being a class act in New York, I'm sure he's enjoying his Superbowl ring.

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

Some people change and some don't.

The main thing that changed Moss was his production and being happy. Moss still showed up to practice.

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

Moss, as a Raider, quit...he flat freakin quit...

Shockey didn't like losing and not getting a chance to contribute without maximizing his talents; he complained, he fussed, but he did not quit...

If the Saints have a culture conducive to winning, as Coach Payton said was his priority when he arrived (changing the culture), then why would you think he'd come in and be a problem...

The Saints definitely need to improve the defense, but if they can put the offense in the top three with Shockey, even with a suspect running game, why not make the move?!?

The 49ers didn't have a dominating defense in the 80's but they had the most prolific offense over course of the decade; why does the formula suddenly not work?!?

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

Jean,

That seems like quite a fair question. I'm certainly on board with the idea that teams that tend to win SBs have great defenses, but why should it be inconceivable that a team with a good (not great) defense and a great offense can't win? Is that actually inconceivable?

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

the 80s were a different era. more teams ran the ball back then. that has a lot to do with it.

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

That doesn't seem right. The 9ers are pretty much famous for introducing the "pass first" offenses that we see a lot of today.

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

yeah. the introduced it in the 80s, it blew up in 89/90, it wasn't a pass first league before that, people ran the ball alot.

...lol...

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

It's not that it's inconceivable, just unlikely.

By the way JP and JK, the 49ers in the 80s had a top 10 scoring defense (regular season) every year that they won the SB:

2nd in 1981, 1st in 1984, 8th in 1988, 3rd in 1989. 6th in 1994.

So did the Rams in the 1990s.

In fact the last two years are the exceptions since 1983. The Giants were 17th and the Colts were 23rd. However, the Giants were 1st last postseason and the Colts were 2nd in the postseason their SB winning year. Each were under 17 pts/game and each played 4 games.

BTW last year the Pats were #2 a scant 0.1 ppg behind the Giants in the postseason. And they too were in the top 10 in scoring defense in the regular season.

The Patriots in the SB were the poster boys for the perfect offense. And they got shut down. Any defense that can stop the run and rush the passer with their front 4 are going to win a ton of football games. Just look at Tennesee last year as a perfect example. Their offense was frankly horrific. Yet they won 10 games in arguably the best division currently in the NFL and made the playoffs.

Teams who don't play defense do not win championships.

There's a reason that it's both in my signature and my avatar.

SFIAH

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

Ya might want to go revisit the 80's the 49'ers were a solid club Offense to Defense. THey had a damn good D.

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

.. yeah, Ronnie Lott, Charles Haley, Keena Turner, Tim McKyer, Kevin Fagan, Bill Romanowski, Dwight Hicks, Manu Tiuawhatever.. yeah they all sucked..

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

SFIAH, I bow to your superior knowledge on this point.

Very interesting.

Can you clarify for me how "scoring defense" is measured (again, this is just a question - it is not leading or critical in any way)? I just want to know what I should be looking for (statistically, at least).

Secondarily, I am now interested in this idea of defense winning games. There is one way in which that is obviously false (since with no points, you can't win). So the way it is intended must be more complex - good defense increases you chance of winning. It is not the only thing that matters, but it is an important part. This is what ya'll have in mind, right?

Now, if the Giants and Patriots both have a top 10 scoring defense, and the Patriots had a better offense, the prediction is that the Patriots should win? Thus, having a great defense is a necessary, but not sufficient condition (requirement) for winning the SB. What then are the other factors that seriously increase the probability of winning the SB? Or, another way of thinking about it might be this: winning games (including the big game) requires a complex set of things (one of which is having a great defense).

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

Bow to his knowledge, just not his wisdom. Defense winning championships has NOTHING to do with NOT picking up Shockey. You have to have an offense, and a damn good one is better than an average one or a bad one.

I mean, we could probably trade Drew Brees for some stud defensive player. Wouldn't be too hard to do. I mean, we can get by with Brunell. He is solid, but not spectacular. Get Shaun Alexander and trade Reggie for a stud DB, and we are rolling.

I mean, why not? If upgrading the offense = hurting the defense, downgrading the offense should assure us a Super Bowl victory.

Who would have thought that Drew Brees and Reggie Bush were actually dragging us down. Drew and Reggie are why the defense sucks! Those bloody offensive leeches should be run out of town on a rail.



Have you ever gone to Waffle House? You see all those numbers they scribble on the side of the check? They are magic. No matter how many times you tally up the numbers, they are always different. They just shift around, and the waitress just approximates a total and scribbles it down. This is the phenomenon I have labeled "Waffle House Mathematics".

SFIAH, you have created the strategy and personnel version of "Waffle House Mathematics". Riddle me this, Waffle Master, why didn't we have "The Dome Patrol Part Deaux" when A.B. was behind center? LOL.

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.

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?!?

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

so billy miller and eric johnson vs defenses that dont care about them equaling shockeys catches vs defenses that plan for him as a big time player is a good thing? if other teams place more focus on shockey and keep him at bm/ej stats what does that do for colston, bush, duece and meachum/patten/henderson?

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

Points per game. Since the number of games is fixed for the regular season, total points scored against the defense also qualifies.

BTW any "superior knowledge" I may have is from researching the topic. The stats are all on Pro-Football-Reference.com - Pro Football Statistics and History at the top of any team's page for a given year. Also I scrounged up the postseason data from the stats section of NFL.com - Official Site of the National Football League

Defense winning championships. The reason is that good defense and running the football function more consistently over a wider variety of conditions. As an example I take you back to 2000, the Baltimore ravens:

2000 Baltimore Ravens Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

If you take a look they only gave up more than 20 points twice all season, and no more than 10 in the playoffs. When you're only giving up 10 points a game, You are always in contention.

Now the problem with teams that shoot it out without a defense is that if the offense sputters at all, then you lose the game. It puts a lot of pressure on an offense to be perfect.

The other aspect, which I've been saying here about the Saints for awhile, is that a defense can give up quite a bit, but if they prevent you from scoring, they've done their job. Put it this way: in a drive an offense needs to succeed on every third down, the defense only needs to succeed on one.

And you missed one final point: the defense can score too, both directly and indirectly. Directly by a turnover return for a TD. Indirectly by a turnover that gives you offense such great field position.
Correct. That's why I have the word virtually in my signature.

Yes. But it's not all that complex. A team has to be able to run the ball effectively and not turn the ball over. Since your defense will virtually always back you up.

But I want to remind you that until that last drive the Patriots defense had done their job. That top 10 defense had their team in a position to win the. That final drive by the Giants was as improbable as they come. Here's a pretty good video of it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7195569314950590387&ei=uP8iSNzsK4amrwK6p-3IAg&hl=en
Without the 4th and 1 conversion and the literally miracle play from Manning to Tyree (which IMHO would result in a sack or incompletion 99% of the time), the game is over with the Giants scoring 10 points. A fanstastic and improbable finish to be sure.

But to finish up, in an ideal NFL world, your team has the best offense, the best defense, and comes away champions. But in virtually every instance in a playoff run, the best defense during that playoff run prevails because it simultaneously takes pressure off your offense while exerting tremendous pressure on opposing offenses.

BTW great offenses and defenses complement one another. That's why the Rams and Cowboys of the 90's and the Niners of the 80's were so successful.

That's where I'd like to see the Saints going in this next window. And our offense is going to be a great contributor to the effort. But IMO it's a near championship caliber offense RIGHT NOW! Brees' surgical precision with the ball almost always works in lieu of that consistent running game that I referred to above. However, like all great offenses the Saints can be shut down by superior defense. Witness the NFC championship game, the Indy game, and the Tennessee game for recent examples.

So that gets us back to Shockey. I know ya'll think I don't think he'll make the offense better. He would. My issue is the potential costs on three fronts: players/picks, dollars, and team chemistry.


Are you willing to give up next year's first for the guy?

What about Harper, your best starting safety?

Are you willing the risk the guy being unhappy with his production?

He's going to want his money. Do you pay him over Smith? Over Colston?

What if Vilma returns to earlier 4-3 and becomes the beast in the middle we think he's going to be. Paying him will impact both the draft pick and potentially Shockey's money.

It's not as clear cut as "He's great! Get him!"

I know it's a lot to read. The Professor is just trying to drop some knowledge.

SFIAH

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

With the relative costs? Absolutely!

BTW Miller and Johnson are not playing 11 on 10. The defense have to account for them too. A safety or a LB have to cover them.

I'm going to keep saying the word until it gets addressed. Let's try three times:

cost, Cost, and COST!

If Shockey were free, I'd take him. If Shockey could be had for next year's 5th, I'd take him. If I could foist Bullocks onto the Giants for Shockey I'd take him.

Dude, the Giants wanted Harper and a 2nd round pick for Shockey. OUCH!!!

Now the financial and team chemistry costs, which are related. You think Shockey is going to be satisfied just being a part of an offense at his current price? He's going to want to be the centerpiece of the offense and want to get paid premium TE money for the privilege.

What impact do you think that Mr. Unhappy is going to bring to the Locker Room. Shockey hasn't participated with anything with the Giants AFAICT. That's the kind of "team player" you want in the Saints locker room?

Let me see if I can give you an oddball example. With gas prices going through the roof, I've been looking at electric cars. You can find my dream car right here:

Tesla Motors

0-60 in 3.9 S, 2 cents a mile to drive, 220 miles per charge. A dream electric car...

...That costs $100,000 for the base model!

With Shockey I'm not even going to bother continuing to argue the production angle. I'm even willing to stipulate to the production of the TE position, even if I don't really believe it's going to be as much an impact as ya'll do.

But Shockey isn't a Saint right now because of costs. It's going to be a painfully high price to bring him in. Those costs can impact the Saints for years to come.

Are you sure you're willing to pay it?

SFIAH

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".

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.

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

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

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

thats what ive been saying all along.....i think that colston may still find himself as a favorite but id like to see shockey with us cuz i know that our short passing offense will allow shockey to go all out....he will be dominating...we will use him...if he wouldnt end up drews favorite target then he would be a close second....shockey has mad skills....if u have the chance to put him on ur team u dont pass it up

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

We have a damn good one right now. #1 and #4 in the league in yards the last 2 years. 5th and 12th in scoring.

Now you've finally gotten to the cost argument. Good.

Let's start with Brees. He cost the team nothing but money. And money structured in such a way that if he didn't work out, the team could cut him for virtually no cost, because he had a $12 million option bonus after the first year.

Reggie was drafted. Again all he costs is money.

Let's not even talk about Alexander. Uggg.

In the case of Shockey, upgrading the offense is hurting the defense. Let's remember what the offer on the table to Giants supposedly was: Our 2nd round pick AND Roman Harper. That pick turned into Porter. So if the trigger got pulled then you lose a defensive starter and a player that's likely to be a contributor on the defense and ST.

Now let's look at the Saints defensive acquitions this offseason so far:

Vilma: cost a 4th round pick and possibly a second next year.

Morgan: just money:

Ellis: A 3rd round pick with the swap that turned into Nicks, projected to be a 2nd round talent. WOW! You get a 2nd round offensive player too!

Porter: nothing but the pick

Pressley: nothing but the pick.

So upgrading the defense cost little more than a couple of picks.

More pointedly, absolutely none of these guys have been reported to be anything other than team oriented pros in the locker room.

Maybe you haven't read my analysis of what should be done with the offense. In summary:

1) Resign our free agents. Check.
2) Integrate PT23 into the running game. Remains to be seen.
3) Pay Colston. Remains to be seen.
4) Get Meachum out on the field. Remains to be seen.
5) Continue to shore up the offensive line to keep Brees upright and to bolster the running game. Goodwin at center and the integration of the young OL (Allenman, Bushrod, Nicks) should assure that.
6) Get Stickum for the receivers hands :D

In short, the offense is already capable of playing at a championship level.

Funny.

Don't get me started about Brooks. There isn't enough space on the Internet for that discussion.

BTW that 2000 Saints defensive squad was 10th in the league in scoring defense. That, along with the 10th best scoring offense, led the Saints to the NFC west crown and the teams first playoff win.

The bottom fell out in 2001. Guess what? The defense dropped to 27th.

My "Waffle House Mathematics" as you put it doesn't change. Successful teams in the NFL play defense. That's the foundation. It's a theme that is recurrent and timeless.

BTW I think it's disingenuous for you to intimate that I want to dismantle the offense to build the defense. I certainly would have had a problem if the Saints wanted to get rid of Brees, Bush, Brown, Colston, or any of the offensive talent to improve the defense. So far the FO has done a brilliant job of rebuilding the defense through judicious trades of draft picks, free agency, and the draft.

But Shockey has deep meaningful costs associated with acquiring him. All I've been pointing out throughout the now dozen pages of this thread is that while he'd certainly improve an already outstanding offense, that the costs in personnel, money, and team chemistry are going to cut, and cut deeply into the fabric of this team.

I'd certainly have no issue with the money if that's all it would cost. I'd even consider rocking the team chemistry boat. But the personnel cost? That's over the top for me.

SFIAH

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

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

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.

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

What exactly do you consider "a perfect offense"? And what exactly do you consider an offense getting "shut down"? Sure the Patriots looked mighty impressive destroying the Jets and Redskins and Buffalo in the regular season, but the post season is another beast.

The fact remains that the Patriots offense took the lead with 2 minutes left. So they didn't get shut down.

That is true, but they need to play offense and special teams as well.

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

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

Every defense has to cover the TE, no matter who the TE is.

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

Moss and Shockey are 2 different players who had different problems. You can't compare the 2. Moss showed up to practice and camp. Shockey doesn't.

When Shockey wasn't hurt he was productive. Why does everything thinks he wasn't used. He was!!! It was a far different team when he got hurt, so much different they went on to have one of the biggest upsets in SB history.

We to can win a SB without him.

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

I don't see why I can't compare the two. If anything, Moss was more of a distraction on his team than Shockey.

Re: payton wants 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.


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.

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.

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

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

Shockey was used...i never said he wasnt...they just didnt know how to use him best...the giants are a run team...that have been since tiki....shockey is explosive as a pass catcher and would flourish in a pass first system...thats what we have....thats a great match....no team needs him to win a super bowl....but u dont need a car to get around...get the idea?....shockey plays hard....moss plays hard too....now.....shockey is consistant when he isnt hurt and if i can find the video of him plowing thru defenders without a helmet then i will post it...hes a beast

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

Thanks for talking about costs papz.

Maybe for just the 2nd rounder.
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)

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

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

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

SFIAH, how did u become such an expert on this subject?.....im not dawgin u im just curious...u have a lot of insight....is there something that u are looking at that we are not?

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

If we bring in Shockey and he's used like Payton wants too then he will be cheerleading for the team because we're going to win games this year and make it to the playoffs. Shockey will take pressure off Colston and Reggie.

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

SFIAH, thanks for the thoughts on points allowed. I think the conclusion might be something like this: the best predictor of SB victory is a top 10 defense in terms of points allowed.

However, since points allowed is a combined stat (it measures offensive as well as defensive success), it is hard to say which contribution (offensive or defensive) is more important. Thus, defense wins championships isn't supported by "points allowed" results alone.

Perhaps we could compare points allowed to traditional offensive stats (like yards per play, completion percentage, or something) to traditional defensive stats (like yards allowed per play, interceptions, sacks, or something) to determine which contributed more to the "points allowed". Maybe time of possession would be an interesting way to tease apart the contributions of offense and defense to points allowed?

This relates to the Shockey dispute in only one way. If Shockey were significant to increasing our time of possession, he would directly contribute to the important "points allowed" statistic. Of course, the "cost" and "character" arguments would still stand on their own.

Interesting!