Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers
 

Not really malaise. More like respect.

When you get a mo, take a look at the new additions to, Panthers, Eagles and Bears.

I am thinking 'degree of difficulty' when it is time to go up against these teams.

Panthers twice and Bears once. We will only see the Eagles again if we make it to Post-season.

The Panthers are bigger at OL and now have a serious backfield. Stewart and Williams. They want to emphasize the running game, but they now have, Muhammad, Hackett, Smith and Jarrett at WR, along with new TE Barnidge.

They look much more balanced and therefore harder to defend.

On D they are stacked at LB, solid at the safety position and have added more bodies at DL.

Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers
 

504 makes good points about our competition this year. We have an easier schedule however(according to last year's records). simply adding one or two key players does not make those teams superbowl contenders tho. that was my argument for bringing in shockey. the eagles added asante samuel whom, IMO, was the only key offseason move for them. with samuel and lito on the corners they will have a dominant pass defense. however, the bears and panthers are up in the air. we normally dont beat the bears and if we lose to them(i penciled us in for a loss there) it wont hurt our chances for a superbowl. the panthers usually split the series with us so im not worried about that either. whether we split the series or not, they will not sweep us simply because our offense is so dominating and their defense will not match up

Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers
 

Dr, that is a nice take.

Of course, any team might find some diamonds in the rough or happen on a sneaky new blitz package... this is why teams aren't just what they are on paper. Maybe that is the key point to remember?

I think we look better on paper (except at Center, Safety, TE, and Running Back) than we did last year, and in at least one of those cases we didn't really need any improvement. I hope this translates into being better than we were last year. I, for one, am optimistic..

Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers
 

I hope the injuried players can play.

Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers
 

So does that make the owners Kraken? Cause that kind of makes sense.

Optimism, the one consistent thing about the Saints' fans. Got to love it.

Hey, I heard them talking on the radio to Sean Payton about co-owning a racehorse and how he enjoys a little wager. If I remember correctly, the other owners were other members of the FO.

I guess the Saints' Staff really are gamblers !

The ponies, the draft, injured players, whatever. Let's make a bet.

The thing is, we just have no idea. That is what I am getting at. If we are upgrading a key position, let's start with a talented and healthy prospect or player, then go from there. If we are going for depth, then we can roll the dice and deal with the outcome. But making plans based on a 'best case' scenario and not even considering the 'worst case' scenario, is a bit dumb.
Like gambling is dumb, if you don't really have very much money.


The Eagles quietly made some smart and interesting moves this year.

They signed Dan Klecko to be their fullback. His previous starting position was D Line, although the Colts also used him as a TE on short yardage situations.

They also signed a guy named Kris Wilson, who was behind Gonzales at TE and HB and who also had lined up in the backfield.

Plus they signed DE Chris Clemons (Raiders), LB Rocky Boiman(Colts), RB Lorenzo Booker (Fins)

In the Draft they got DT Trevor Laws, WR Desean Jackson, FS Quintin Demps,
CB Jack Ikegwuonu

They definitely added more than one player in 08.

Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers
 

Big Time Gamblers? - Black and Gold Forums

I started a reply and it went on for great lengths so I felt it better posted in the Blog section of the site.

Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers
 

You make it sound like we're putting all our eggs into one basket. We've only made two big acquistions on injured players in the past, Brees and Vilma. Only Brees was a big investment and risk, not Vilma. He was had for a nickel on a dollar. If he doesn't work out, we didn't lose much. And if he does, what a steal he would be. I'd rather have Vilma than that 4th round pick we gave up any day of the week... as I'm sure most, and probably you, would agree (which makes this thread pointless).

Making big risk investments in highly talented injured players has not been a trend. It's only happened once. I'd also like to point out that if we wanted to gamble, we had and have plenty of cap room to do whatever as we please.

Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers
 

Saints needed to add speed and more talent at LB. They added Vilma and Morgan, both seriously injured.

Morgan has retired and on WWL radio yesterday, Vilma was discussing not be able to participate fully as he is still rehabbing.

Last year they brought in LB Simmons who was coming off a serious injury and was never really productive. He was cut too.

This year the Saints will likely have to start without McAllister and therefore begin a tough season at a competitive disadvantage.

We are not discussing a player, we are looking at a FO philosophy, that goes thinks 'bargain hunting' is a legit way to improve the team.

Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers
 

Ocean? I take great offense to football being compared to an ocean.

Have any of you ever been left at sea? You get sunburned, thirsty, tired and eventually eaten by sharks. How does this compare to football?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.