Saints' Staff are Gamblers

papz · 05-23-2008, 06:14 AM

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.

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.

504Highlander · 05-23-2008, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by papz

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.

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.

papz · 05-23-2008, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by 504Highlander

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.

And what did these moves cost us? Practically nothing. I don't see anything wrong whatsoever on the moves we've made. I can't see why anyone would complain about a low risk low investment high reward signing/trade.

Once again, so were you opposed to us acquiring Vilma?

Did Brees not work out?

What did Morgan cost us in the end?

You act like we haven't made any inquiries all offseason about "healthy" players. They just haven't been in our price range. Why overpay if you don't think that player will get you over that hump? Obviously we felt comfortable enough in Vilma to obtain him... it'll be okay. Even if he didn't start the season 100%, he's still better than what we've got at 80.

One may forget that the '06 team didn't exactly look good on paper... especially at LB.

504Highlander · 05-23-2008, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by papz

And what did these moves cost us? Practically nothing. I don't see anything wrong whatsoever on the moves we've made. I can't see why anyone would complain about a low risk low investment high reward signing/trade.

Once again, so were you opposed to us acquiring Vilma?

Did Brees not work out?

What did Morgan cost us in the end?

You act like we haven't made any inquiries all offseason about "healthy" players. They just haven't been in our price range. Why overpay if you don't think that player will get you over that hump? Obviously we felt comfortable enough in Vilma to obtain him... it'll be okay. Even if he didn't start the season 100%, he's still better than what we've got at 80.

One may forget that the '06 team didn't exactly look good on paper... especially at LB.

The cost is much more than dollars. Let's compare the history of the Saints franchise to say; The Carolina Panthers and the Jacksonville Jaguars and lately, the Houston Texans.

The common denominator is time. The Saints and the fans and the city have 'endured' the lack of success for a very long time.

Panthers, Jags and Texans are relatively new teams which have done well in a short time.

Much of their success has to do with acquiring talent that can get on the field and contribute right away. In general. they have done a better job of getting talent and production through the draft and free agency.

That is the core of my beef with the philosophy of this FO.

iceshack149 · 05-23-2008, 02:17 PM

Panthers, Jags and Texans are relatively new teams which have done well in a short time.

Panthers and Jags sure. But Texans?

Welcome 504. You've played a good devils advocate and it makes it interesting. Unless you're serious about the sky is falling stuff?

Much of their success has to do with acquiring talent that can get on the field and contribute right away. In general. they have done a better job of getting talent and production through the draft and free agency.

The Saints went to the NFC Championship game in 2006. It's 2008 and most of the talented players that were on the team then are on the team now.
You're concerned about the RB, TE, and LB positions and I agree that RB and LB are indeed weaknesses. However, I assert that those two positions are stronger in 2008 than they were in 2006. Stronger because of two guys: Pierre Thomas and Jonathon Vilma.

I understand that you are concerned with the health of two players that have been great in their own right in McAllister and Vilma. I have no argument for that. I can't say that they will be 100% by game one so all I can do assume that behind the scenes, the Saints coaching staff knows what they are doing.

The big weakness for the Saints to address after the 2007 season was defense. McCray, Ellis, Vilma, Porter are all defensive players that are sure to be on the field a lot this year so to be disappointed the FO after these moves is befuddling to me. Were you expecting the team to be like the Raiders or the Redskins and break the bank on every free agent they could get their hands on? That doesn't work unless the team is rebuilding and have no where to go but up.

On offense, if Deuce isn't healthy enough to begin the season then I'm pretty confident in Pierre Thomas. His game in Chicago was phenomenal and the spot duty before that game showed much also. He was in the voting for Rookie of the Week after that 24 yard TD run.

I think that many people, even non-Saints fans, would agree that the Saints are favored to be on top of the NFC South come seasons end.

Every team has weaknesses. The Saints have done pretty well this off-season in my book.

504Highlander · 05-23-2008, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by iceshack149

Panthers and Jags sure. But Texans?

Welcome 504. You've played a good devils advocate and it makes it interesting. Unless you're serious about the sky is falling stuff?

The Saints went to the NFC Championship game in 2006. It's 2008 and most of the talented players that were on the team then are on the team now.
You're concerned about the RB, TE, and LB positions and I agree that RB and LB are indeed weaknesses. However, I assert that those two positions are stronger in 2008 than they were in 2006. Stronger because of two guys: Pierre Thomas and Jonathon Vilma.

I understand that you are concerned with the health of two players that have been great in their own right in McAllister and Vilma. I have no argument for that. I can't say that they will be 100% by game one so all I can do assume that behind the scenes, the Saints coaching staff knows what they are doing.

The big weakness for the Saints to address after the 2007 season was defense. McCray, Ellis, Vilma, Porter are all defensive players that are sure to be on the field a lot this year so to be disappointed the FO after these moves is befuddling to me. Were you expecting the team to be like the Raiders or the Redskins and break the bank on every free agent they could get their hands on? That doesn't work unless the team is rebuilding and have no where to go but up.

On offense, if Deuce isn't healthy enough to begin the season then I'm pretty confident in Pierre Thomas. His game in Chicago was phenomenal and the spot duty before that game showed much also. He was in the voting for Rookie of the Week after that 24 yard TD run.

I think that many people, even non-Saints fans, would agree that the Saints are favored to be on top of the NFC South come seasons end.

Every team has weaknesses. The Saints have done pretty well this off-season in my book.

I was hoping for 2008 upgrades at the weak positions.

IMO weak positions are :

RB, TE on O

DL, LB and DB on D. All three defensive tiers.

I like PT, and the game he played in Chicago was terrific.
Can he replace Deuce for the whole season and be the featured back? At this point, all I can say is that I hope so.

TE is the same as 07.

I have stated earlier on that I liked the D Line moves. I believe that at D Line we have an upgrade.

They brought in 2 seriously injured LB's. One retired, one still rehabbing.
No upgrade yet.

I was not sold on the CB draft pick, or the free agents they brought in.
No upgrade yet.

Also, on the Texans - They kicked our a$$ in 07 and beat the Bucs and have beaten the Colts.

We didn't do that last year. So, yeah - the Texans !

Memnoch_TP · 05-23-2008, 10:36 PM

Brees wasn't a gamble. I heard QB's saying his injury was no big deal, I heard doctors say it was no big deal, the only people who called Brees' shoulder injury "career threatening" was the media.

As for Vilma, medical science is getting better and better. I'm sure the Saints medical staff was quite familiar with Vilma's knee before he was signed. It is much less a gamble and more a calculated risk. They aren't exactly flipping a coin for it.

You just want big name players at your highlight positions. I understand that, but move on, cause the arguments that you use to defend your wants are getting dull.

CantonLegend · 05-24-2008, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by 504Highlander

IMO weak positions are :

RB, TE on O

i know this really wasnt ur point but u did say it.....why wasnt ne of the line positions one of the weak ones?...seeing as how we lost one of the better centers in the league and now have a very underrated center stepping in but at the same time has little experience and might not be able to carry the center position the whole year....or what about RT....can streif and stinch really hold down the right side next to jahri....everybody knows hes doin his job...now its the tackles turn...and he better be able to if drew gets hurt cuz our next 2 QBs are left handed and gotta know that their blind side is protected....what about LG....is nesbit really a quality starter?....he has been starting for our team for awhile but he really hasnt done ne thing to impress being that he was sandwiched between a good LT and a good C....maybe thats a weak position.....and TE?....do u really think we need an upgrade at TE?...we have had a top 5 offense for the past 2 seasons with those TEs....just for arguments sake...Y do u think we need an upgrade?..was it because one was available over the offseason or was it because the media got to u and now ur being persuaded by the likes of Mel Kiper and chris berman?

SaintFanInATLHELL · 05-24-2008, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by 504Highlander

I was hoping for 2008 upgrades at the weak positions.

IMO weak positions are :

RB, TE on O

DL, LB and DB on D. All three defensive tiers.

We of course disagree on the offensive positions. I totally agree on defense.

I like PT, and the game he played in Chicago was terrific.
Can he replace Deuce for the whole season and be the featured back? At this point, all I can say is that I hope so.

The Saints will not have a feature back this year. The Saints haven't had a feature back the last 2 years. An NFL feature back is going to have numbers like 300+ carries, 1500+ yards. No Saints back in the last 2 years has even come close. It's the nature of the offense.

I keep talking about productivity in the Saints running game for a reason. Saints backs simple are not going to get a ton of carries. So it's much more important for each carry to count than the number of carries or the total yards.

Can PT23 be a 300+ carry , 1500+ yard back? Nope.

Can PT23 be a 200 carry, 900 yard back? Definitely.

Watch the yards per carry. For the Saints in the last 2 years, the rishing game has averaged 3.7 YPC. If we can get that up to 4.5 then we're looking at production even if the total yards are limited.

PT23 isn't a featured back. And he isn't going to need to be one either.

TE is the same as 07.

74 catches, 709 yards, 4 TDs between Miller and Johnson. While not spectacular, certainly solid.

I have stated earlier on that I liked the D Line moves. I believe that at D Line we have an upgrade.

Agreed.

They brought in 2 seriously injured LB's. One retired, one still rehabbing.
No upgrade yet.

The rehabbing one was Pro Bowl caliber the last time he played MLB. #53 isn't fit to be wiped off someone's shoes.

We certainly could have drafted Rivers or Mayo into the MLB slot. But then we would have lost that significant upgrade in the D-Line.

I think the Saints made the right move. Time will tell.

I was not sold on the CB draft pick, or the free agents they brought in.
No upgrade yet.

Well you can argue that until anyone hits the field for real there's no real upgrade at any position. All we know is that the secondary played awful last year. We have absolutely no true idea how the changes at the line or in the LB core is going affect the secondary play. Past performance of other teams have shown that DLines that can bring pressure, and a MLB that can stuff the run makes all levels of the defense better.

SFIAH

05-23-2008, 06:14 AM	#1
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,768	Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers 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. 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.
	Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege. All little common sense goes a long way.

05-23-2008, 10:40 AM	#2
504Highlander Registered Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 47 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers Originally Posted by papz 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. 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.
	If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

05-23-2008, 11:53 AM	#3
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,768	Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers Originally Posted by 504Highlander 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. And what did these moves cost us? Practically nothing. I don't see anything wrong whatsoever on the moves we've made. I can't see why anyone would complain about a low risk low investment high reward signing/trade. Once again, so were you opposed to us acquiring Vilma? Did Brees not work out? What did Morgan cost us in the end? You act like we haven't made any inquiries all offseason about "healthy" players. They just haven't been in our price range. Why overpay if you don't think that player will get you over that hump? Obviously we felt comfortable enough in Vilma to obtain him... it'll be okay. Even if he didn't start the season 100%, he's still better than what we've got at 80. One may forget that the '06 team didn't exactly look good on paper... especially at LB.
	Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege. All little common sense goes a long way. Last edited by papz; 05-23-2008 at 12:07 PM..

05-23-2008, 12:18 PM	#4
504Highlander Registered Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 47 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers Originally Posted by papz And what did these moves cost us? Practically nothing. I don't see anything wrong whatsoever on the moves we've made. I can't see why anyone would complain about a low risk low investment high reward signing/trade. Once again, so were you opposed to us acquiring Vilma? Did Brees not work out? What did Morgan cost us in the end? You act like we haven't made any inquiries all offseason about "healthy" players. They just haven't been in our price range. Why overpay if you don't think that player will get you over that hump? Obviously we felt comfortable enough in Vilma to obtain him... it'll be okay. Even if he didn't start the season 100%, he's still better than what we've got at 80. One may forget that the '06 team didn't exactly look good on paper... especially at LB. The cost is much more than dollars. Let's compare the history of the Saints franchise to say; The Carolina Panthers and the Jacksonville Jaguars and lately, the Houston Texans. The common denominator is time. The Saints and the fans and the city have 'endured' the lack of success for a very long time. Panthers, Jags and Texans are relatively new teams which have done well in a short time. Much of their success has to do with acquiring talent that can get on the field and contribute right away. In general. they have done a better job of getting talent and production through the draft and free agency. That is the core of my beef with the philosophy of this FO.
	If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

05-23-2008, 02:17 PM	#5
iceshack149 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Fairbanks, AK Posts: 4,339 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers Panthers, Jags and Texans are relatively new teams which have done well in a short time. Panthers and Jags sure. But Texans? Welcome 504. You've played a good devils advocate and it makes it interesting. Unless you're serious about the sky is falling stuff? Much of their success has to do with acquiring talent that can get on the field and contribute right away. In general. they have done a better job of getting talent and production through the draft and free agency. The Saints went to the NFC Championship game in 2006. It's 2008 and most of the talented players that were on the team then are on the team now. You're concerned about the RB, TE, and LB positions and I agree that RB and LB are indeed weaknesses. However, I assert that those two positions are stronger in 2008 than they were in 2006. Stronger because of two guys: Pierre Thomas and Jonathon Vilma. I understand that you are concerned with the health of two players that have been great in their own right in McAllister and Vilma. I have no argument for that. I can't say that they will be 100% by game one so all I can do assume that behind the scenes, the Saints coaching staff knows what they are doing. The big weakness for the Saints to address after the 2007 season was defense. McCray, Ellis, Vilma, Porter are all defensive players that are sure to be on the field a lot this year so to be disappointed the FO after these moves is befuddling to me. Were you expecting the team to be like the Raiders or the Redskins and break the bank on every free agent they could get their hands on? That doesn't work unless the team is rebuilding and have no where to go but up. On offense, if Deuce isn't healthy enough to begin the season then I'm pretty confident in Pierre Thomas. His game in Chicago was phenomenal and the spot duty before that game showed much also. He was in the voting for Rookie of the Week after that 24 yard TD run. I think that many people, even non-Saints fans, would agree that the Saints are favored to be on top of the NFC South come seasons end. Every team has weaknesses. The Saints have done pretty well this off-season in my book.
	"...it's good to have friends, no matter where they are."--JOESAM2002

05-23-2008, 09:21 PM	#6
504Highlander Registered Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 47 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers Originally Posted by iceshack149 Panthers and Jags sure. But Texans? Welcome 504. You've played a good devils advocate and it makes it interesting. Unless you're serious about the sky is falling stuff? The Saints went to the NFC Championship game in 2006. It's 2008 and most of the talented players that were on the team then are on the team now. You're concerned about the RB, TE, and LB positions and I agree that RB and LB are indeed weaknesses. However, I assert that those two positions are stronger in 2008 than they were in 2006. Stronger because of two guys: Pierre Thomas and Jonathon Vilma. I understand that you are concerned with the health of two players that have been great in their own right in McAllister and Vilma. I have no argument for that. I can't say that they will be 100% by game one so all I can do assume that behind the scenes, the Saints coaching staff knows what they are doing. The big weakness for the Saints to address after the 2007 season was defense. McCray, Ellis, Vilma, Porter are all defensive players that are sure to be on the field a lot this year so to be disappointed the FO after these moves is befuddling to me. Were you expecting the team to be like the Raiders or the Redskins and break the bank on every free agent they could get their hands on? That doesn't work unless the team is rebuilding and have no where to go but up. On offense, if Deuce isn't healthy enough to begin the season then I'm pretty confident in Pierre Thomas. His game in Chicago was phenomenal and the spot duty before that game showed much also. He was in the voting for Rookie of the Week after that 24 yard TD run. I think that many people, even non-Saints fans, would agree that the Saints are favored to be on top of the NFC South come seasons end. Every team has weaknesses. The Saints have done pretty well this off-season in my book. I was hoping for 2008 upgrades at the weak positions. IMO weak positions are : RB, TE on O DL, LB and DB on D. All three defensive tiers. I like PT, and the game he played in Chicago was terrific. Can he replace Deuce for the whole season and be the featured back? At this point, all I can say is that I hope so. TE is the same as 07. I have stated earlier on that I liked the D Line moves. I believe that at D Line we have an upgrade. They brought in 2 seriously injured LB's. One retired, one still rehabbing. No upgrade yet. I was not sold on the CB draft pick, or the free agents they brought in. No upgrade yet. Also, on the Texans - They kicked our a$$ in 07 and beat the Bucs and have beaten the Colts. We didn't do that last year. So, yeah - the Texans !
	If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

05-23-2008, 10:36 PM	#7
Memnoch_TP Logic Troll Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Southern Louisiana Posts: 565	Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers Brees wasn't a gamble. I heard QB's saying his injury was no big deal, I heard doctors say it was no big deal, the only people who called Brees' shoulder injury "career threatening" was the media. As for Vilma, medical science is getting better and better. I'm sure the Saints medical staff was quite familiar with Vilma's knee before he was signed. It is much less a gamble and more a calculated risk. They aren't exactly flipping a coin for it. You just want big name players at your highlight positions. I understand that, but move on, cause the arguments that you use to defend your wants are getting dull.
	"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams.

05-24-2008, 09:48 AM	#8
CantonLegend 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,685 Blog Entries: 2	Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers Originally Posted by 504Highlander IMO weak positions are : RB, TE on O i know this really wasnt ur point but u did say it.....why wasnt ne of the line positions one of the weak ones?...seeing as how we lost one of the better centers in the league and now have a very underrated center stepping in but at the same time has little experience and might not be able to carry the center position the whole year....or what about RT....can streif and stinch really hold down the right side next to jahri....everybody knows hes doin his job...now its the tackles turn...and he better be able to if drew gets hurt cuz our next 2 QBs are left handed and gotta know that their blind side is protected....what about LG....is nesbit really a quality starter?....he has been starting for our team for awhile but he really hasnt done ne thing to impress being that he was sandwiched between a good LT and a good C....maybe thats a weak position.....and TE?....do u really think we need an upgrade at TE?...we have had a top 5 offense for the past 2 seasons with those TEs....just for arguments sake...Y do u think we need an upgrade?..was it because one was available over the offseason or was it because the media got to u and now ur being persuaded by the likes of Mel Kiper and chris berman?
	"deal with it or you can go play the saints and get trounced by 30 and you won't have to worry about it."-colin cowherd

05-24-2008, 03:45 PM	#9
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,781	Re: Saints' Staff are Gamblers Originally Posted by 504Highlander I was hoping for 2008 upgrades at the weak positions. IMO weak positions are : RB, TE on O DL, LB and DB on D. All three defensive tiers. We of course disagree on the offensive positions. I totally agree on defense. I like PT, and the game he played in Chicago was terrific. Can he replace Deuce for the whole season and be the featured back? At this point, all I can say is that I hope so. The Saints will not have a feature back this year. The Saints haven't had a feature back the last 2 years. An NFL feature back is going to have numbers like 300+ carries, 1500+ yards. No Saints back in the last 2 years has even come close. It's the nature of the offense. I keep talking about productivity in the Saints running game for a reason. Saints backs simple are not going to get a ton of carries. So it's much more important for each carry to count than the number of carries or the total yards. Can PT23 be a 300+ carry , 1500+ yard back? Nope. Can PT23 be a 200 carry, 900 yard back? Definitely. Watch the yards per carry. For the Saints in the last 2 years, the rishing game has averaged 3.7 YPC. If we can get that up to 4.5 then we're looking at production even if the total yards are limited. PT23 isn't a featured back. And he isn't going to need to be one either. TE is the same as 07. 74 catches, 709 yards, 4 TDs between Miller and Johnson. While not spectacular, certainly solid. I have stated earlier on that I liked the D Line moves. I believe that at D Line we have an upgrade. Agreed. They brought in 2 seriously injured LB's. One retired, one still rehabbing. No upgrade yet. The rehabbing one was Pro Bowl caliber the last time he played MLB. #53 isn't fit to be wiped off someone's shoes. We certainly could have drafted Rivers or Mayo into the MLB slot. But then we would have lost that significant upgrade in the D-Line. I think the Saints made the right move. Time will tell. I was not sold on the CB draft pick, or the free agents they brought in. No upgrade yet. Well you can argue that until anyone hits the field for real there's no real upgrade at any position. All we know is that the secondary played awful last year. We have absolutely no true idea how the changes at the line or in the LB core is going affect the secondary play. Past performance of other teams have shown that DLines that can bring pressure, and a MLB that can stuff the run makes all levels of the defense better. SFIAH
	Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.