Register All Albums FAQ Community Experience
Go Back   New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints

Archuleta and Harper?

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; You are preaching to the choir... at least about the pressure. Bullocks on the otherhand, minds of many have already been set....

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-07-2008, 01:30 PM   #11
Problem?
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 11,737
Re: Archuleta and Harper?

You are preaching to the choir... at least about the pressure. Bullocks on the otherhand, minds of many have already been set.

Last edited by papz; 05-07-2008 at 01:32 PM..
papz is offline  
Old 05-07-2008, 02:08 PM   #12
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,633
Re: Archuleta and Harper?

Bullocks isn't a playmaker. Bellamy was, Knight was, even Willie Clay was. Bob Sanders or Ronnie Lot could play in the weakest secondary ever and still make plays. Bullocks never shows up just like Simoneau. I'd rather a slow safety that's always around the ball making plays than a fast guy that's never around. Dwight Smith as better IMO than Bullocks.
Papa Voodoo is offline  
Old 05-07-2008, 02:38 PM   #13
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,423
Re: Archuleta and Harper?

Bullocks has been about the same (statistically) his whole stay here.

. G GS Tkl Solo Ast Sck PDef Int
2007 New Orleans Saints 14 14 77 65 12 1.0 8 2
2006 New Orleans Saints 16 16 71 56 15 0.0 5 2
2005 New Orleans Saints 16 13 67 53 14 0.0 5 1

Josh Bullocks

If he was good enough to play in a secondary that made it to the conference final (and he was), then he's good enough to play in a secondary that can take us to a conference final.

I agree that he isn't a play maker. I just think "he sucks" is way too strong. He may not be good, and he is certainly not great, but "sucks", really?

I am certainly pro getting an upgrade at Safety, but I don't think that is as simple as replacing Bullocks with "whoever".

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks
JKool is offline  
Old 05-07-2008, 04:15 PM   #14
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,633
Re: Archuleta and Harper?

I'd like to see Archuleta competing with Bullocks and KK. If Bullocks wins out then fine by me.

Last edited by Papa Voodoo; 05-07-2008 at 04:18 PM..
Papa Voodoo is offline  
Old 05-07-2008, 04:25 PM   #15
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,423
Re: Archuleta and Harper?

That seems like a pretty sane stance. I'd like to see them bring in someone I thought was good already, then I wouldn't feel like they would have to grow on me.

I'm not really sold on Archuleta, but I'm certainly sold on the idea of some competition. Isn't this why we had like 10 Safeties on the roster at the beggining of training camp last year?
JKool is offline  
Old 05-07-2008, 04:58 PM   #16
The Dark Overlord
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: dirty south
Posts: 3,450
Re: Archuleta and Harper?

Originally Posted by JKool View Post

If he was good enough to play in a secondary that made it to the conference final (and he was), then he's good enough to play in a secondary that can take us to a conference final.

I agree that he isn't a play maker. I just think "he sucks" is way too strong. He may not be good, and he is certainly not great, but "sucks", really?

he was playin in the sec. when we went to the conf. finals but he was also part of the reason we didnt win that game.. we got burn deep plenty of times that game and bullocks was always out of position.. frankly im tired of seeing him blow coverages.. he sucks..
pakowitz is offline  
Old 05-07-2008, 06:36 PM   #17
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,423
Re: Archuleta and Harper?

He's also part of the reason we made it to that game (i.e. he was a contributing member of our defense that year).

I doubt that he was always out of position. (And before anyone suggests I didn't see the game, I did).

Statistically speaking Bullocks is about where most of the second rate starters in the NFL are. Of course, we could get better, but we could get a lot worse.

I'm starting to think that I just don't understand what people mean when they say "sucks." I'm really coming to believe that means "I don't like so and so, and we could have a better player than so and so" - not much content there.

I can certainly get on board with upgrading that position, but I think we could do much worse than what we have. Was the secondary really that much better the two games KK started (I'm actually just asking that - it isn't rhetorical)? If someone decides to answer that, I'm not going to be swayed by your opinion - I'd like something a little more concrete.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks
JKool is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts