Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

The New Orleans Saints are a team that has boast having one of the best offenses in the entire NFL over the past three or four years. Drew Brees is of course the leader of that unit and he is a big reason that so many players are as good as they are. Working together with a unit that has learned the intricacies of one another in order to be as close to perfect as possible.
Up until this past season though, the Saints relied mostly on their passing game to get them where they needed to be. Unfortunately it was never quite enough and that was why the help of a running game including Pierre Thomas and Mike Bell this season helped them reach the pinnacle.

Wide receivers are still a big part of the offense because Brees can only be as good as those that catch the balls he throws. Marques Colston and Devery Henderson have more then proved their worth on that field so then the corp seems to get a bit crowded. Robert Meachem showed this season that he was not a first round bust as many originally thought. Adrian Arrington has never gotten the chance to really get on the field and Courtney Roby is a decent receiver, but an extremely good return man.

Looking at who this season became the fourth receiver though is what the deal at hand is. So essentially, should the Saints re-sign Lance Moore?
Moore is a wide receiver out of the University of Toledo that came to the Saints undrafted like many others in the Sean Payton regime. His original route took him to the Cleveland Browns but then to New Orleans after his release. He spent all of 2005 on the practice squad of the black and gold. It was in 2006 when he was moved up to the active roster, but only was active for six games and saw playing time in four.

2007 saw Lance Moore finally get extended playing time as he took part in every game and got his first start in October of that year alongside Marques Colston. His numbers were modest as he tried to work his way up the long line of receivers the Saints had on the roster, but he showed a lot of promise and nice flashes of talent.

Lance Moore's Career Statistics
Year Games Receptions Yards Average Long TD First Downs Fumbles Lost
2006 4 1 10 10.0 10 0 1 0 0
2007 16 32 302 9.4 22 2 22 0 0
2008 16 79 928 11.7 70 10 40 0 0
2009 7 14 153 10.9 22 2 10 0 0

The next season is when Moore completely came out of his shell and showed that he was a force to be reckoned with, albeit a small one. He went into the season as the number three receiver on the depth chart, but moved into the starting role when Colston went down early in the season with a broken finger that sidelined him for quite a while. Moore's small stature meant nothing because he was all over that field and became one of Brees' favorite targets in 2008. He even set the Saints' record of 5 for the number of consecutive games in which a player caught a touchdown reception. Lance Moore really showed his worth that season.

2009 would not be nearly as successful for him though as injuries shortened his playing time considerably. He played in seven games, but even that time was limited by hamstring and multiple ankle injuries. Recording only fourteen catches all season is not a good way to look at things. It appears even worse when seven of those receptions came in just the game against the Giants alone. Moore's injuries really affected a lot and it hurt his season so much.

Lance Moore proved in 2008 that he can be a big time threat when healthy, but he wasn't going to surprise anyone this season. The problem is that he never got the chance to really do so because of injuries that kept him on the sidelines. It's a shame too because I was really looking forward to seeing if he could build on that breakout season he had that put him on the map. Sadly he wasn't really given the chance or opportunity too thanks to reasons no-one had control over.

With the amount of valuable wide receivers ahead of him on the depth chart and the number of tight ends on the roster that are just as valuable; one has to begin wondering if Moore deserves a long term deal or an amount of money necessary to keep him on the roster. I like Lance Moore a lot and think he has a great amount of potential when he is healthy, but there should not be an extraordinary amount of money spent on him.

Colston is your number one with Henderson finally losing the butterfingers and proving he can catch the ball as a number two. He also has the speed to burn defenders at will. Meachem came out of nowhere and proved to be a giant touchdown threat this season so he moved up easily into the third spot while Moore was out. With the looks of Arrington, Roby, and even Rod Harper (who looked very good in the offseason), then Moore could be the odd man out if he decides to get greedy.

Did I mention the kid has great hands? Look at that, not a single fumble in 126 receptions and that's saying something. A healthy and stat-filled season this upcoming year could get him the type of money he would deserve, but a season with only 14 catches does not really give you much of a bargaining chip. If he decides to play greedy though, then it should be a rather simple decision. Hate to see him go, but there was plenty of success in then passing game without him.

A little bit of healthy legs and some more time on the field...we could possibly be seeing the next Steve Smith (of the Panthers) on our hands.
Final Word: Give Moore a long-term deal if he wants it, but do not overpay him.


FULL STORY AT THE EXAMINER

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

i say ya gotta resign him, as much as i would have liked to see other receivers get their shot. Moore has proven to everyone that he is for real, when colston went down in 2008, moore stepped up big time, drew has alot of confidence in him and i believe moore has the best hands in the nfl. Especially after making that fantastic 2 point conversion grab in the superbowl.
Another point, is that hes drew's go to guy on 3rd down, he is very dangerous on 3rd down, because he recognizes zone coverage and can find the gap between the coverage. Some analysts doubt his size and speed, last year vs the packers on monday night football Moore played out of his mind.
As i said i'd luv to see people like adrian arrington progress, but at this point, moore is just a safer football player and had a unlucky season with injuries. Hey he stepped up when it counted though didn't he

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

Well I doubt he plays for free. :mrgreen:

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

Bring him back, he's one of Drew's main targets. Look what he did in 2008, his numbers were down last year due to injury so he won't cost as much as could of been expected plus I doubt any other of the WRs on this team make that catch he made for the 2 point conversion

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

It's hard to get a full reading on Lance Moore. When he is healthy, he is a highly effective receiver. Very intelligent with great quickness and great hands, he is near the top of an outstanding receiving corps. But he is prone to injury. The fact that he has been injured quite a bit will probably keep his salary down, though, and I would favor keeping him and hoping his heath woes resolve themselves.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

He stays... he is a tremendous athlete. See the 2 point conversion... hurt all year mostly and makes a catch like that on that stage.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

Moore stays. He has been a magnet for priority passes, for the past two years. A third down machine. Give him the money, and keep the magic going.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

I say yes, within reason of course. Dude's good...great hands and moves.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

See, I mirror TopCow's sentiments.

As a healthy receiver then Moore is an excellent receiver and a target that Brees loves. But then again he has only had one healthy season where he was overly productive because of injuries this past season. So it's hard to see if he was simply a flash in the pan.

The question remains as well...if Moore is healthy again this season and stays that way, then will he still get a lot of playing time and receptions? With Meachem's coming about, Moore might end up a fourth WR more then anything.

I say mid-level contract this season if he is willing to do it (which he should) for a short term perhaps...then see how he performs next season.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

Then what about AA and the other Harper as WR? We can't keep everyone and we have youth in the wings. Lance might make good trade bait. If not you pay him for what he is a 3rd or 4th WR behind MC,DH, AND RM.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

I say keep Moore.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

He would have to want an extreme amount of money not to keep him. He's a proven commodity wheras Harper and AA are not.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

We can do without him. We probably need that money for Drew, Jahri, and PT.

Tender him low and hope someone bites. Unfortunately for him, its a position of strength for us.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

...in the SB, after the Shockey TD, when Payton called the 2-point conversion, he said "I want Lance Moore". Lance is staying in NO.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

If keeping him means we can't re-sign Jahri Evans or Pierre Thomas, you still want him?

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

Why would that be?

Besides, other than Drew, no one in Sean Payton's offense is indispensable.
Remember when Deuce got hurt? Everyone was "oh my God, we are screwed at RB". What happened?
Remember when LeCharles Bentley left to go to the Browns? Everyone was "oh my God, we are screwed at center". What happened?
Remember when Faine left to go to the Bucs? Again, everyone was "oh my God, we are screwed at center". What happened?
Remember when Brown got hurt? Everyone was"oh my God we are screwed at LT".
.. and whoever Carl Nicks replaced (his name escapes me at the moment) ... you get the idea

I would love to see Lance, PT, Evans, all of the offense back. If they don't, for whatever reason, well, too bad, but the Saints offense doesn't suffer from missing any one player other than Drew, and we know that because we have seen it the past 4 years. There will be no cap next year, so if the team can secure players now with big salaries should they decide to keep them and not hit a cap wall in 2 years.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

let mickey loomis due his magic !

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

I'm not following you at all.

Lance is replacable. If signing him to big money means we can't sign Evans, Brees and PT, then I say we let Lance walk. We can't sign every one of our free-agents to more money. We were already up against the cap anyway.

Personally I don't think Lance will demand too much but we're speaking hypothetical anyway.

There will be a cap, and rules prevent us from exploiting 2010 for 2011 cap relief.

On the list of players we must re-sign for bigger money, Lance Moore is way down the list.


Oh and for the record, I wasn't one of the ones who said we were screwed by ANY of those losses. And it was Nesbit that Nicks replaced.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

Yeah, if it comes down to it Lance Moore is replaceable. Hopefully, it will not come down to that, really want him to stick around. Fortunately for the Saints, they have a very good track record in developing WR's.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

We need to keep him.... probably best hands on the team ... trade the other up and comers!

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

Disagree 100%. Since our WR corps is a position of excess, I'd much rather have the Lance Moore equivalent at WLB, SLB, DT, or DE.

I think we can get by just fine with Colston, Henderson, and Meachem as our top 3 WR's.

Again, only if keeping him costs us at other positions, which it probably won't.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

Exactly. We got by the majority of the season without him. I like Lance Moore and wouldn't mind keeping him, but he has become expendable with Devery solidifying himself as an all-around threat and the emergence of Robert Meachem. I still want to see what Adrian Arrington has to offer, as well. If other positions can be upgraded by losing Moore, I would rather us go that route.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

Yep, but the main point is expendable "if necessary".

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

We don't have a guy that makes that two point conversion as he did... he's our Wes Welker. SP called his number for a reason on that play. We can package a couple of our good prospects to those said WLB, SLB, DT, or DE. There are quite a few teams in dire need of WR help!

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

reps...I've been wanting to say this for the last 2 days.

edit...(nevermind on those reps...said I got to spread them around first)

He appears to be toning down the celebrating a bit, too, which I personally am in favor of.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

Yes we do. Colston, Henderson and Meachem can all catch that pass. And PT and Bush are all excellent pass catchers out of the backfield. And Shockey and Thomas can catch pretty well themselves.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

With all due respect, Danno...or respeckk, was it???...anyway...

no...no, they don't...sorry.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

It all depends on what he's looking for. If someone is willing to overpay for him, then let him walk. Now while he has great hands and does a great job running routes, he's had one good season. So based on production, he should be affordable where that he'll re-sign... though I don't think he should get more than Devery.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

When you're upset about something, you seek out comfort food. When the defense is harassing the QB and isn't giving the WR's much, you seek out a comfort receiver. That describes Moore. We need a receiver like that, and Moore is the only one on the team. Every team also needs a few special players with great hands. Pierre is the only other player with hands like Moore. If he's replaced, it needs to be with someone who has great hands, runs great routes, has a great rapport with Drew, and who Payton has great confidence in. There's nobody like that on the radar, but are they grooming Matt Simon for that role?

I'm not comfortable with the current WR situation. We need to carry 1 more so we won't have any untested WR's on the squad (like Arrington). If more than 1 WR gets tweaked, that forces Robey into the mix, and I'm not comfortable with him.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

Decisions, Decisions! Yes Moore is a very good clutch receiver who will move the chains on 3rd down. He has a different skill set from the others. I would like to see him stay with The Saints, but I guess I don't want to see any of my Super Bowl 44 winning team leave. I want the magic to continue forever, cause I waited forever for it to start. They all have great chemistry and no big egos, but I know it's football. I guess we'll have to let ML and SP make the decision for us.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

The question should be...

what happens if he takes Meachum off the field? Do we go to the Superbowl? Does Lance bring something were missing or do we loose something by putting him on the field? To me he's a product of the system. Sure he has great hands but he'd be the 4th receiver in this offense and a situational player at best.

With the emergence of Meachum and the steady hands that Henderson has shown, Moore only gets on the field in short yardarge situations. Still, can he block like the bigger WRs?

I could be way wrong. He reminds me of Wes Welker. Enough said.

If he wasn't a RFA, he'd be decent trade bait.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

If Lance is willing to be signed to a multi year deal that isn't too expensive I say yes. If he would have had a similar season to 2008 this year he would have more money. But because he was injured...sign him but not too much money.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

We need to keep everyone together. Add a couple of DT's, a couple of outside LB's and a backup QB and CB in the draft but keep the same team intact. If the Saints can do that they will have a huge advantage over everyone else. If Donavan moves, Philly won't be in the hunt this year and if Favre comes back or not it's still hard on the team not knowing and preparing for it or not preparing for his return. It's just damn confusing. The Cowboys are totally unpredictable and the Giants defense needs alot of work. The Panthers are finished keeping Delhomme and letting Peppers fly. The Falcons should be better after some injuries to key players in 2009 but no where near the Saints. The Bucs will have a new coach after another season of losing. The Redskins will be better but Shannahan is not Breesus. The Lions, oh please. Green Bay will be there at the end but still not the caliber of the Saints or Minnesota. The Cardinals will be 7-9 after the Lineheart experiment. The 49ers will be good on defense but terrible on offense. The Bears will be 8-8 along with the Seahawks, so there you have it. We look pretty good going into the season coupled with a strength of schedule at #27 this season 2010 NFL Strength Of Schedule compared to last years #8 2009 NFL Strength Of Schedule - (SOS), nfl schedules, fantasy football
it looks Breezy once again in the Big Easy.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

I think Lance is a great fit in this offense, but let's face it, this was still the #1 offense in the NFL without him this past season. I think the Saints have a lot of leverage to not overpay for him, and if he asks for a big contract, I'll have no feeling of regret about it. I'd like him to stay, but there's no use in spending big bucks on a guy who is replaceable for cheaper.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

Tender him a 2nd round compensation/ 4 accrued seasons.

If we lose him we get a 2nd round draft pick. If we keep him its relatively cheap ($1.759 million)

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

There are several teams out there needing a good receiver, someone could bite. It's a win/win situation as far as I'm concerned.:cool:

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

I feel like the FO and Lance will come to some reasonable terms.

And don't forget Lance can step in to receive punts. Remember this season with Lance out and Reggie questionable they were prepping Devery to receive punts just in case. C'mon man, Devery catching punts?
No, I'm sure they'll find some reasonable money to keep Lance. Simply put, he's solid depth that can't be replaced easily. I would say his biggest liability at this point is durability after his injury riddled 09 season.
Can we survive without Moore on the roster? Absolutely. But are we a better team with him on the roster and healthy? No question about it.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

"probably the best hands on the team"? He has the best hands - period. Just watch him catch the ball - EVERY BALL that's in his reach: high, low, behind him, in traffic, off the shoestring still in stride. The article talks about Henderson's new found catchability; mark my word, its just temporary; he still catches the ball with his arms, in his bread basket, and gets separated from it way too often because of it. Moore fought the injury bug "this year" but the other bigger frames (Colst-Meach-Henderson) are much more prone to the i-bug bites. No other receiver we have can get separation at will, like Moore can. Moore is one of our best receivers after the catch. Every players contract is evaluated in relation to all the other contracts that have to get done. I say do all we can to keep Moore on our team to continue to do the unique things he brings to this offense. It seems to me, the more easily replaceable components are Henderson and Meachem.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

If we lose Moore, we'll have to find a replacement. Nobody on the team has his entire skill set, as far as I know. His hands are rare, and so is his work ethic.

Re: Should the Saints pay Lance Moore?
 

Great hands yes, but he's no better an NFL WR than Colston, Henderson or Meachem.

And his work ethic is also no better than those 3 either.