darren howard
 

are the saints gonna franchise tag him or allow him to hit free agency?

darren howard
 

If they can\'t reach agreement I think they franchise him.
No way he hits free-agency.
Unfortunately, most of the free agents we\'re targeting will never hit the market either.
I think the only way to land a big name free agent nowadays in the NFL is to grossly overpay for them.

darren howard
 

Nah - target the ones that hit early and put up some realistic money. Quarles, Spikes, Colvin, Claiborne - those were some good LBs that hit last season and I\'m forgetting about half of them.

It\'s hard to get a Charles Woodson type player, but there are a lot of very good players who hit the market. Of course you have to pay for them, but...

darren howard
 

Depends who you ask :

21.) DE Darren Howard Current Team: Saints Free Agent Status: UFA 2004 Team Projection: Seahawks

http://qisports.com/freeagentprojections.html

darren howard
 

Well, I guess if he goes at least we still have Whitehead. Howard is a freak and maybe the second best football player on our team behind Deuce and I would hate to see him go. However, IF he does, I\'m not too unhappy with Whitehead ASSUMING we pick up another DT to play along side Sullivan. Whitehead\'s gotta have like 5% body fat. The guy is a specimen and he played like a freak for a while early this season before Howard came back. I want Howard, but if he goes I don\'t think we lose as much as we would at other positions if we lost starters. Whitehead could start a lot of places in this league, if you ask me.

darren howard
 

I agree with Whodat on this one!

I think the Howard is a key to our being dominant both in rushing the passer and stopping the run, but Whitehead is awesome too. I\'m glad we retained him this year.

I also agree that the only way that Howard matters over Whitehead is if we add a fourth quality lineman at DT. If we don\'t, then I think that Howard\'s impact is diminished greatly and we may as well go with Whitehead who will be cheaper and can do well in Howard\'s stead. If we are going to go for a quality DT, then why would we pass up a chance to have a dominant front four (which was clearly a key for the two Superbowl teams this year)? Our chances are only seriously improved with Howard if we get the interior some help to get him some extra time (and free him up) to rush the passer.

darren howard
 

Are you thinking about Grant? You said the same thing a few times in your post, just scripted differently, but I do not see the logic in this statement, if you are in fact referring to Howard and not Grant. Can you tell me why that we would need a dominant DT next to Sully in order for Howard to be effective? He plays against the run as well as he does against the pass, and especially better against the run than Whitehead. Not trying to be a smartass, I just don\'t understand your statement.
I mean, yeah, having good players next to you will help anyone, that\'s just common sense, but I don\'t see where not having that extra dominant DT would diminish his role any.

[Edited on 4/2/2004 by BlackandBlue]

darren howard
 

I think that question was directed at JKool, no?

I think a better DY next to Howard helps, but my point was simply that if we are going to lose Howard, at least we have Whitehead, who is pretty decent too. Could be worse is what I\'m trying to say.

darren howard
 

It was directed at JKool

I guess this is the quote I found most troubling. Whitehead is good, not to take anything away from him, but he is not Darren Howard- he does not have the stamina that Howard has to play consistently over a full season and does not have the combination of speed and strength to play strong side end as effective as Howard. Howard, when healthy, can be one of the best all around ends in the league, not just pass rush, like Grant, which is the reason I thought he might have meant Grant in the first place.
And stating that having a dominant DT helps the other defensive linemen is like saying that having a dominant fullback makes your running back play better, or having a dominant QB makes your wide receivers play better- common sense.

[Edited on 4/2/2004 by BlackandBlue]

darren howard
 

I agree - although it is interesting that you say that Howard has the stamina to play over a full season - he hasn\'t done that in the last two. The thing that worries me is he will be expensive, he is already good, they have a suitable replacement, and he has been injury prone of recent. I don\'t want to lose this guy, but I can see Haslett giving him the walking papers.

darren howard
 

When I said that he had the stamina to play consistently over a full season, I was referring that he has the ability to play tough throughout the season, without showing signs of fatigue, unlike many players. Injuries can be so random, that I don\'t even take that into account, although I do feel that we should take a closer look as to why he seems so injury plagued and if this is going to continue throughout his career.

[Edited on 5/2/2004 by BlackandBlue]

darren howard
 

I might have been mistaken B&B, but here was my thinking:

Of course Howard is a better player than Whitehead. However, I think if we are not going to commit ourselves to getting more help against the run, he will always be slowed by having to pull double duty (no matter which DT is playing next to him). Thus, we may as well go with an adequate DE and focus that money elsewhere, if we are not going to take making our line truly impressive seriously. This is perhaps misguided, and your question a good one, but that is what I was thinking. I also agree that I didn\'t express that very well, but I\'d have to say that I\'m a bit overworked these days.

I also agree that it is probably common sense that having other good players around benefits all, but I didn\'t realize that common sense was not to be employed here. ;)

I\'m not sure what I think about Howard\'s stamina. Injuries can be freaky, but they also tend to happen more often under two conditions - the player is playing while worn out, or the player is overextending himself. Thus, Howard\'s injuries in both of the last two years indicate that he is either being asked to play beyond his reach or he does not have the stamina so claimed. I do agree with you that Howard can probably play more snaps that Whitehead, but given Howard\'s injuries, I\'m not sure which of the two has more Stamina.

darren howard
 

I see where you are coming from. I think if we replace Howard with an above average DE, then others on the line will suffer, ie, Grant will be lucky to ever see the QB, much less sack him.

Mostly, it\'s not, but you can always count on a certain degree of common sense from me :P

Howard had started every regular season game up until this past year, where he missed the first eight games due to a dislocated right wrist that occured at the beginning of the season. That\'s not an issue with stamina, that\'s dumb luck. If it was stamina related, it would have occured halfway to 3/4 of the way through the season. Other than that, go back and check his numbers, he\'s been a stud for us, and every day that passes where we don\'t have this guy signed irritates me more and more. ESPN.com doesn\'t even have him listed as a Saints player anymore under the roster page.

darren howard
 

B&B,

Sold.

Well argued. I too will now fret over our resigning of Howard. Though, I will continue to maintain that we ought to really work to add DT with star quality. I am also still of the opinion that we ought to spend some big cash on a stud at MLB.

I also think that Grant is a stud - though much less effective against the run than Howard. Though, if he has to pull double duty, I concede your point that he may become a non-factor.

I guess I may have been talking out of my azz a bit. I probably got distracted by my excitement about agreeing with WhoDat.

Cheers.