New Orleans Saints: What Who Dat Fans Can Expect from Junior Galette in 2012

FinSaint · 02-12-2012, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by gandhi1007

Dwight Freeney was considered under-sized. How did that work out?

So was Muggsy Bogues in the NBA, and I don't know what that has to do with anything?

Both of the Colts' "bookends" Freeney & Mathis are undersized, granted they've been good DEs for quite some time, but they're not as perfect as sometimes people think.

Mathis was tied at #18 in sacks last season, and Freeney was #26 - both are very respectable positions, but not as dominating as one might think. Now, it seems that these "undersized" DEs are able to get to the QB quite well... as is the case with JG also. But, if we look at the Colts' run defense from last season, we find them at #29, which seems to corroborate the whole theory of smaller DEs not being as good in run defense than rushing the passer.

Of course I'm not saying that these two DEs are the reason why Colts' run defense was so bad this season - and most of the previous seasons as well - but only that the stats seem to point towards that fact. I mean, Freeney, for example, played in all of the 16 regular season games, but was only able to get 19 tackles during that span.

Now, my point was not that because of Gallette's size he can never be a starter in the NFL, but that his size - especially his height (he was the shortest DE in the roster last season) - is one of the biggest obstacles he has to climb over in order to become a true starter.

disclaimer: I accidentally counted in the LBs as well, even though I didn't mean to, but it's early and I'm too tired to fix that right now, and the LBs were smaller than the DEs, so the average probably would go up if LBs were taken out. And in the end 3-4 OLBs are pretty much like 4-3 DEs.
If we look at the Top 10 pass rushing DEs from last season, in regards to their sack totals - Allen, Ware, Babin, Pierre-Paul, Aldon Smith, Suggs, Chris Long, Hali, Barwin, Von Miller, and Avril - we come up with the average physical traits of 6-4 and 264 lbs. In my mind that is substantial, because none of the guys were as tall or shorter than JG. And if we are saying that JG should raise his weight to around 270 lbs, it would mean that he would be much heavier than any of these top guys, especially in relation to his height. 6-2 and 275 lbs DE is in light of the above comparisons is a short and overweight pass rusher - and naturally I'm being overtly harsh here for sure. And it is not only about the weight, greater height gives a pass rusher leverage to either push of or bull rush an offensive linesman - just ask Jarred Allen (6-6, 270) how that works.

I know that it might not be fair to compare the top guys of the NFL against an undrafted 2nd year guy, but I was only trying to make a point, and don't we ultimately want our starting DEs to be up there among the best in the NFL?

Originally Posted by blackangold

I'm not sure if he (JR) has serious deficiencies in the run game, I'm not saying he is a stud vs the run but is he really that awful against a running game?

I was speaking in relative terms, but I admit that I probably shouldn't have used an adjective like "serious," because it does make it sound like he can't defend against the run at all. How about, "run defense is the weakest part of his overall game at the moment?"

Originally Posted by blackangold

I would like to see JR given the opportunity to test his ability to hold the edge and push running backs inside. It may not be fair to say he is bad against the run when he hasn't been on the field in running situations.

I find it hard to believe that he wasn't given a chance show what he can do in a running down, before the coaching staff made the assessment that there was a better option for them on the roster to those given situations. I do remember him being pushed back at times with the run blocks, and being unable to set the edge. But I admit that I wasn't paying it that much attention during the season, and there probably were times where he played the run very well.

Originally Posted by blackangold

I realize JR needs to grow as a player and refine skills he has to be the monster I believe he can be, but he needs to be on the field first. Also, as the article mentions I would like to see him add 5-10 lbs and stay around 270lbs.

I believe our defensive starters are on the roster already (exception being DT).
Sometimes the best way to groom raw-talented players is to let them play.

That is a good perspective on the situation, but unfortunately a player usually has to show the coaches something on the practice field as well before he is given the chance to show his worth on a game day - at least that was my experience playing sports when I was younger.

It all goes back to the old saying that "you have to earn it, don't expect it to be given." There were rumors that GW and JG didn't see eye-to-eye on some things and that was why he didn't get as much time on the field as he may have deserved to, but that dynamic has changed with Spags being the new DC, and it will be interesting to see how JG will develop under Spags.

And, finally, I really hope you're wrong about that last statement!

gandhi1007 · 02-12-2012, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by FinSaint

So was Muggsy Bogues in the NBA, and I don't know what that has to do with anything?

Both of the Colts' "bookends" Freeney & Mathis are undersized, granted they've been good DEs for quite some time, but they're not as perfect as sometimes people think.

1st-What it has to do with is that a player's size doesn't mean squat!

2nd-Freeney is a 3 time ALL PRO & 7 time Pro Bowler. Considering he's only been in the league 10 years, I'd say that's pretty darn good.

Last- Prototypes really don't impress me. Let me just start off with a small list of guys who don't fit the "prototypes" of their positions, but seem to do quite well. I'll stick with current players.

#1 - Drew Brees - at 5'11", he's considered short. Future HOF
#2 - Dwight Freeney - at 6'1", he's considered short. See above details
#3 - Steve Smith - 5'9" Severely undersized under the status quo
#4 - Darren Sproles - 5'6" (& that's generous)
#5 - London Fletcher - 5'10" Another Future HOF

Those are just a few "undersized" players that don't fit the "prototype". I could go on about guys like Sam Mills, Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson, Darrell Green, etc... All were guys considered under-sized per their positions.

That, my friend, is the point. You cannot judge what a player brings to the table by "prototypes". Gallette can play, has a motor, & has heart. Something that our prototypical $68 million starter hasn't had since pay day.

FinSaint · 02-12-2012, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by gandhi1007

1st-What it has to do with is that a player's size doesn't mean squat!

2nd-Freeney is a 3 time ALL PRO & 7 time Pro Bowler. Considering he's only been in the league 10 years, I'd say that's pretty darn good.

Last- Prototypes really don't impress me. Let me just start off with a small list of guys who don't fit the "prototypes" of their positions, but seem to do quite well. I'll stick with current players.

#1 - Drew Brees - at 5'11", he's considered short. Future HOF
#2 - Dwight Freeney - at 6'1", he's considered short. See above details
#3 - Steve Smith - 5'9" Severely undersized under the status quo
#4 - Darren Sproles - 5'6" (& that's generous)
#5 - London Fletcher - 5'10" Another Future HOF

Those are just a few "undersized" players that don't fit the "prototype". I could go on about guys like Sam Mills, Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson, Darrell Green, etc... All were guys considered under-sized per their positions.

That, my friend, is the point. You cannot judge what a player brings to the table by "prototypes". Gallette can play, has a motor, & has heart. Something that our prototypical $68 million starter hasn't had since pay day.

I know what your point was about the size, I was only saying that an exception doesn't make a rule. Naturally, we can find many such examples like you already stated of players who didn't fit the "prototype mold," but were still very successful. But, I would counter you by stating that those are just anomalies when compared to the number of players that had great success and fit right into that "prototypical stereotype."

I would also continue by saying that RB sizes are not comparable in the same way as small demeanor is often more of a advantage to a RB than a disadvantage, because they get "hidden" behind big O-Linemen, which makes it hard for the defenders to spot them before it's too late. Big RBs are more often susceptible to injuries because they tend to run more straight up, and get hit/tackled on their lower body because of it causing f.e. a lot of knee injuries.

I did not say that Freeney wasn't a good (or even great) DE, only that he isn't maybe as dominant of a DE as is often the perception about him, and that his run defense isn't probably his strongest area, which may or may not be because of his size. I was only trying to make comparables to what may be one of the hindrances to JG becoming a dominant DE for the Saints, and Freeney wasn't initially brought up by me as an example.

Originally Posted by gandhi1007

What it has to do with is that a player's size doesn't mean squat!

And that statement, my friend, is just completely untrue. Of course a player's size means something and often quite a bit depending on the particular position we are considering. To say that it doesn't mean anything is just ridiculous. How many 5-11 DTs are there in the NFL?

And just to restate the fact that I'm not in any shape or form saying that Gallette can never be an all-around complete DE and a perennial starter for the Saints because of his size. I was only saying that his size is something that he will have to find ways to work around in order to reach the level of someone like Freeney.

BTW, if you were referring to Will Smith with "our prototypical $68 million starter" I would add that Smith is also on the smaller side if compared to the prototype I presented earlier.

gandhi1007 · 02-12-2012, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by FinSaint

And that statement, my friend, is just completely untrue. Of course a player's size means something and often quite a bit depending on the particular position we are considering. To say that it doesn't mean anything is just ridiculous. How many 5-11 DTs are there in the NFL?

Of course being under-sized has it's limits at certain positions. You surely wouldn't start a 5'10" 240 lbs. DT. That's a given. There are many, though, that are considered under-sized at their positions that excell. There are also many "prototypes" that are busts. As Saints fans, we have seen that right here at home time & time again. As mentioned previously, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. Gallette has proven every time he's seen the field that he can play every bit as well (better IMO) than our $68 million starter at DE. Under-sized or not, the guy deserves a shot.

FinSaint · 02-12-2012, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by gandhi1007

Of course being under-sized has it's limits at certain positions. You surely wouldn't start a 5'10" 240 lbs. DT. That's a given. There are many, though, that are considered under-sized at their positions that excell. There are also many "prototypes" that are busts. As Saints fans, we have seen that right here at home time & time again. As mentioned previously, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. Gallette has proven every time he's seen the field that he can play every bit as well (better IMO) than our $68 million starter at DE. Under-sized or not, the guy deserves a shot.

I was only answering back to your claim that "a player's size doesn't mean squat," but maybe I'm just poor at reading sub-text.

And once again, I never intended to start a debate on whether or not Gallette was a good DE or if he could develop into a good to great DE that was based simply on his size. I was only mentioning it being an obstacle he had to overcome and something that might be causing some of the problems he had defending against the run, which the original article mentioned.

I was only trying to play the devil's advocate in this thread, because there's so much fan love directed at Gallette that it seems that we don't always evaluate him with objectivity. But as far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this topic.

blackangold · 02-12-2012, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by FinSaint

And, finally, I really hope you're wrong about that last statement!

In the thread "your spags fix our D" I gave my projected 2012 roster for starting D. I'd like to hear what you would disagree with.

There are a few things I kept in mind. First, re-signing the big three will eat most if not all of the cap space we have which will limit the ability to sign the big name FA. Second, I trust Loomis, look at the UDFA on offense he was able to get (Colston, Nicks, Evans, PT) and make into very productive players because of his ability to find the diamond in the rough. We have the diamonds on the defensive side of the ball, however they are still stuck in the rough because of a DC who played to complex and failed to teach fundamentals of the game. Spags will come in and realize he has a plethora of talent to work with.

FinSaint · 02-12-2012, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by blackangold

In the thread "your spags fix our D" I gave my projected 2012 roster for starting D. I'd like to hear what you would disagree with.

There are a few things I kept in mind. First, re-signing the big three will eat most if not all of the cap space we have which will limit the ability to sign the big name FA. Second, I trust Loomis, look at the UDFA on offense he was able to get (Colston, Nicks, Evans, PT) and make into very productive players because of his ability to find the diamond in the rough. We have the diamonds on the defensive side of the ball, however they are still stuck in the rough because of a DC who played to complex and failed to teach fundamentals of the game. Spags will come in and realize he has a plethora of talent to work with.

Originally Posted by blackangold

Starting D for 2012 season (current roster)
DE Gallete
DT Johnson/Jorden
NT Franklin
DE Romeus (if healthy) McBride (if not)

WLB Casillas
MLB Vilma
SLB Wilson

CB Greer
SS Harper
FS Jenkins
CB Robinson

NB Patrick

Cut Shanle, Ellis and Smith--don't re-sign Porter or Rodgers. Use FA or draft to get depth at DT

Ok. I guess this was what you were referring to...

First of all, all the money lost down the drain with cutting Shanle, Ellis, and Smith is really not an ideal move, and I'm pretty confident that the Saints' FO won't do that.

I say keep all three - Shanle as a backup for one more year at $2M, Ellis plays out his contract at $6M and has hopefully a career year on a contract year, Smith's contract gets restructured and he returns hopefully with a deal worth about $4-5M/year. If somebody from that 3 is to be cut, it would be Shanle as it will be the smallest of the hits.

I doubt that Romeus will be a starter on day 1 - if I had to choose from the guys they have at the moment it would be Smith & Jordan on the ends and Gallette & Romeus in the rotation. You have to remember that Jordan might improve vastly during this off-season with full OTAs and camps, which he didn't have this past off-season - he is after all the 1st round pick, and I have to believe that the scouts and the FO saw something in him what impressed them.

Franklin and Johnson at DT could work, but I would seriously think about an upgrade there - no matter how much I like Johnson, I think he is better suited to being a rotational guy and not a day 1 starter. Of course that could change with the full off-season and Spags at the reigns, but that is all very uncertain at this point in time. Franklin wasn't very impressive, but like I have already stated on numerous other threads I wouldn't be against seeing him return, especially with a cheap contract.

I would say that the Saints need to acquire a big time DT to start in front of Franklin, then Franklin could sub in for this "Mr. QB pressure" on running downs etc. I don't think that the pair of Franklin and Johnson will be able to create the pressure and push we are all hoping for and, therefore, I can't agree with that line-up. Jordan is a DE and while I think that Spags might use him more lining up at center, that is only because he has done it before with DEs - lining even four of them on the front four.

While I love both Casillas and Wilson, I really hope that they are able to bring in a big time OLB. Casillas has a tendency to get hurt, so I don't know if they can really expect him to start the whole season long. M. Williams would certainly make that LB line-up look a lot more menacing.

But, on the secondary I completely agree with your line-up!

It's really hard to make estimates at this point in time on how the roster will develop through the FA period and the draft, but I do hope that they are going to bring in at least a good to great DT, OLB, and a DE.

02-12-2012, 04:10 AM	#1
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,963	Originally Posted by gandhi1007 Dwight Freeney was considered under-sized. How did that work out? So was Muggsy Bogues in the NBA, and I don't know what that has to do with anything? Both of the Colts' "bookends" Freeney & Mathis are undersized, granted they've been good DEs for quite some time, but they're not as perfect as sometimes people think. Mathis was tied at #18 in sacks last season, and Freeney was #26 - both are very respectable positions, but not as dominating as one might think. Now, it seems that these "undersized" DEs are able to get to the QB quite well... as is the case with JG also. But, if we look at the Colts' run defense from last season, we find them at #29, which seems to corroborate the whole theory of smaller DEs not being as good in run defense than rushing the passer. Of course I'm not saying that these two DEs are the reason why Colts' run defense was so bad this season - and most of the previous seasons as well - but only that the stats seem to point towards that fact. I mean, Freeney, for example, played in all of the 16 regular season games, but was only able to get 19 tackles during that span. Now, my point was not that because of Gallette's size he can never be a starter in the NFL, but that his size - especially his height (he was the shortest DE in the roster last season) - is one of the biggest obstacles he has to climb over in order to become a true starter. disclaimer: I accidentally counted in the LBs as well, even though I didn't mean to, but it's early and I'm too tired to fix that right now, and the LBs were smaller than the DEs, so the average probably would go up if LBs were taken out. And in the end 3-4 OLBs are pretty much like 4-3 DEs. If we look at the Top 10 pass rushing DEs from last season, in regards to their sack totals - Allen, Ware, Babin, Pierre-Paul, Aldon Smith, Suggs, Chris Long, Hali, Barwin, Von Miller, and Avril - we come up with the average physical traits of 6-4 and 264 lbs. In my mind that is substantial, because none of the guys were as tall or shorter than JG. And if we are saying that JG should raise his weight to around 270 lbs, it would mean that he would be much heavier than any of these top guys, especially in relation to his height. 6-2 and 275 lbs DE is in light of the above comparisons is a short and overweight pass rusher - and naturally I'm being overtly harsh here for sure. And it is not only about the weight, greater height gives a pass rusher leverage to either push of or bull rush an offensive linesman - just ask Jarred Allen (6-6, 270) how that works. I know that it might not be fair to compare the top guys of the NFL against an undrafted 2nd year guy, but I was only trying to make a point, and don't we ultimately want our starting DEs to be up there among the best in the NFL? Originally Posted by blackangold I'm not sure if he (JR) has serious deficiencies in the run game, I'm not saying he is a stud vs the run but is he really that awful against a running game? I was speaking in relative terms, but I admit that I probably shouldn't have used an adjective like "serious," because it does make it sound like he can't defend against the run at all. How about, "run defense is the weakest part of his overall game at the moment?" Originally Posted by blackangold I would like to see JR given the opportunity to test his ability to hold the edge and push running backs inside. It may not be fair to say he is bad against the run when he hasn't been on the field in running situations. I find it hard to believe that he wasn't given a chance show what he can do in a running down, before the coaching staff made the assessment that there was a better option for them on the roster to those given situations. I do remember him being pushed back at times with the run blocks, and being unable to set the edge. But I admit that I wasn't paying it that much attention during the season, and there probably were times where he played the run very well. Originally Posted by blackangold I realize JR needs to grow as a player and refine skills he has to be the monster I believe he can be, but he needs to be on the field first. Also, as the article mentions I would like to see him add 5-10 lbs and stay around 270lbs. I believe our defensive starters are on the roster already (exception being DT). Sometimes the best way to groom raw-talented players is to let them play. That is a good perspective on the situation, but unfortunately a player usually has to show the coaches something on the practice field as well before he is given the chance to show his worth on a game day - at least that was my experience playing sports when I was younger. It all goes back to the old saying that "you have to earn it, don't expect it to be given." There were rumors that GW and JG didn't see eye-to-eye on some things and that was why he didn't get as much time on the field as he may have deserved to, but that dynamic has changed with Spags being the new DC, and it will be interesting to see how JG will develop under Spags. And, finally, I really hope you're wrong about that last statement!
	"I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

02-12-2012, 05:11 AM	#2
gandhi1007 Part Time Pimp Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,967	Originally Posted by FinSaint So was Muggsy Bogues in the NBA, and I don't know what that has to do with anything? Both of the Colts' "bookends" Freeney & Mathis are undersized, granted they've been good DEs for quite some time, but they're not as perfect as sometimes people think. 1st-What it has to do with is that a player's size doesn't mean squat! 2nd-Freeney is a 3 time ALL PRO & 7 time Pro Bowler. Considering he's only been in the league 10 years, I'd say that's pretty darn good. Last- Prototypes really don't impress me. Let me just start off with a small list of guys who don't fit the "prototypes" of their positions, but seem to do quite well. I'll stick with current players. #1 - Drew Brees - at 5'11", he's considered short. Future HOF #2 - Dwight Freeney - at 6'1", he's considered short. See above details #3 - Steve Smith - 5'9" Severely undersized under the status quo #4 - Darren Sproles - 5'6" (& that's generous) #5 - London Fletcher - 5'10" Another Future HOF Those are just a few "undersized" players that don't fit the "prototype". I could go on about guys like Sam Mills, Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson, Darrell Green, etc... All were guys considered under-sized per their positions. That, my friend, is the point. You cannot judge what a player brings to the table by "prototypes". Gallette can play, has a motor, & has heart. Something that our prototypical $68 million starter hasn't had since pay day. SapperSaint, halloween 65 and CharityMike like this.
	http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...gs/12-3006.jpg ______________________________ KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE! -G.I. Joe

02-12-2012, 06:56 AM	#3
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,963	Originally Posted by gandhi1007 1st-What it has to do with is that a player's size doesn't mean squat! 2nd-Freeney is a 3 time ALL PRO & 7 time Pro Bowler. Considering he's only been in the league 10 years, I'd say that's pretty darn good. Last- Prototypes really don't impress me. Let me just start off with a small list of guys who don't fit the "prototypes" of their positions, but seem to do quite well. I'll stick with current players. #1 - Drew Brees - at 5'11", he's considered short. Future HOF #2 - Dwight Freeney - at 6'1", he's considered short. See above details #3 - Steve Smith - 5'9" Severely undersized under the status quo #4 - Darren Sproles - 5'6" (& that's generous) #5 - London Fletcher - 5'10" Another Future HOF Those are just a few "undersized" players that don't fit the "prototype". I could go on about guys like Sam Mills, Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson, Darrell Green, etc... All were guys considered under-sized per their positions. That, my friend, is the point. You cannot judge what a player brings to the table by "prototypes". Gallette can play, has a motor, & has heart. Something that our prototypical $68 million starter hasn't had since pay day. I know what your point was about the size, I was only saying that an exception doesn't make a rule. Naturally, we can find many such examples like you already stated of players who didn't fit the "prototype mold," but were still very successful. But, I would counter you by stating that those are just anomalies when compared to the number of players that had great success and fit right into that "prototypical stereotype." I would also continue by saying that RB sizes are not comparable in the same way as small demeanor is often more of a advantage to a RB than a disadvantage, because they get "hidden" behind big O-Linemen, which makes it hard for the defenders to spot them before it's too late. Big RBs are more often susceptible to injuries because they tend to run more straight up, and get hit/tackled on their lower body because of it causing f.e. a lot of knee injuries. I did not say that Freeney wasn't a good (or even great) DE, only that he isn't maybe as dominant of a DE as is often the perception about him, and that his run defense isn't probably his strongest area, which may or may not be because of his size. I was only trying to make comparables to what may be one of the hindrances to JG becoming a dominant DE for the Saints, and Freeney wasn't initially brought up by me as an example. Originally Posted by gandhi1007 What it has to do with is that a player's size doesn't mean squat! And that statement, my friend, is just completely untrue. Of course a player's size means something and often quite a bit depending on the particular position we are considering. To say that it doesn't mean anything is just ridiculous. How many 5-11 DTs are there in the NFL? And just to restate the fact that I'm not in any shape or form saying that Gallette can never be an all-around complete DE and a perennial starter for the Saints because of his size. I was only saying that his size is something that he will have to find ways to work around in order to reach the level of someone like Freeney. BTW, if you were referring to Will Smith with "our prototypical $68 million starter" I would add that Smith is also on the smaller side if compared to the prototype I presented earlier.
	"I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

02-12-2012, 06:33 PM	#4
gandhi1007 Part Time Pimp Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,967	Originally Posted by FinSaint And that statement, my friend, is just completely untrue. Of course a player's size means something and often quite a bit depending on the particular position we are considering. To say that it doesn't mean anything is just ridiculous. How many 5-11 DTs are there in the NFL? Of course being under-sized has it's limits at certain positions. You surely wouldn't start a 5'10" 240 lbs. DT. That's a given. There are many, though, that are considered under-sized at their positions that excell. There are also many "prototypes" that are busts. As Saints fans, we have seen that right here at home time & time again. As mentioned previously, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. Gallette has proven every time he's seen the field that he can play every bit as well (better IMO) than our $68 million starter at DE. Under-sized or not, the guy deserves a shot. halloween 65 likes this.
	http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...gs/12-3006.jpg ______________________________ KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE! -G.I. Joe

02-12-2012, 07:54 PM	#5
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,963	Originally Posted by gandhi1007 Of course being under-sized has it's limits at certain positions. You surely wouldn't start a 5'10" 240 lbs. DT. That's a given. There are many, though, that are considered under-sized at their positions that excell. There are also many "prototypes" that are busts. As Saints fans, we have seen that right here at home time & time again. As mentioned previously, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. Gallette has proven every time he's seen the field that he can play every bit as well (better IMO) than our $68 million starter at DE. Under-sized or not, the guy deserves a shot. I was only answering back to your claim that "a player's size doesn't mean squat," but maybe I'm just poor at reading sub-text. And once again, I never intended to start a debate on whether or not Gallette was a good DE or if he could develop into a good to great DE that was based simply on his size. I was only mentioning it being an obstacle he had to overcome and something that might be causing some of the problems he had defending against the run, which the original article mentioned. I was only trying to play the devil's advocate in this thread, because there's so much fan love directed at Gallette that it seems that we don't always evaluate him with objectivity. But as far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this topic. gandhi1007 likes this.
	"I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

02-12-2012, 02:14 PM	#6
blackangold 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,422	Originally Posted by FinSaint And, finally, I really hope you're wrong about that last statement! In the thread "your spags fix our D" I gave my projected 2012 roster for starting D. I'd like to hear what you would disagree with. There are a few things I kept in mind. First, re-signing the big three will eat most if not all of the cap space we have which will limit the ability to sign the big name FA. Second, I trust Loomis, look at the UDFA on offense he was able to get (Colston, Nicks, Evans, PT) and make into very productive players because of his ability to find the diamond in the rough. We have the diamonds on the defensive side of the ball, however they are still stuck in the rough because of a DC who played to complex and failed to teach fundamentals of the game. Spags will come in and realize he has a plethora of talent to work with.

02-12-2012, 03:51 PM	#7
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,963	Originally Posted by blackangold In the thread "your spags fix our D" I gave my projected 2012 roster for starting D. I'd like to hear what you would disagree with. There are a few things I kept in mind. First, re-signing the big three will eat most if not all of the cap space we have which will limit the ability to sign the big name FA. Second, I trust Loomis, look at the UDFA on offense he was able to get (Colston, Nicks, Evans, PT) and make into very productive players because of his ability to find the diamond in the rough. We have the diamonds on the defensive side of the ball, however they are still stuck in the rough because of a DC who played to complex and failed to teach fundamentals of the game. Spags will come in and realize he has a plethora of talent to work with. Originally Posted by blackangold Starting D for 2012 season (current roster) DE Gallete DT Johnson/Jorden NT Franklin DE Romeus (if healthy) McBride (if not) WLB Casillas MLB Vilma SLB Wilson CB Greer SS Harper FS Jenkins CB Robinson NB Patrick Cut Shanle, Ellis and Smith--don't re-sign Porter or Rodgers. Use FA or draft to get depth at DT Ok. I guess this was what you were referring to... First of all, all the money lost down the drain with cutting Shanle, Ellis, and Smith is really not an ideal move, and I'm pretty confident that the Saints' FO won't do that. I say keep all three - Shanle as a backup for one more year at $2M, Ellis plays out his contract at $6M and has hopefully a career year on a contract year, Smith's contract gets restructured and he returns hopefully with a deal worth about $4-5M/year. If somebody from that 3 is to be cut, it would be Shanle as it will be the smallest of the hits. I doubt that Romeus will be a starter on day 1 - if I had to choose from the guys they have at the moment it would be Smith & Jordan on the ends and Gallette & Romeus in the rotation. You have to remember that Jordan might improve vastly during this off-season with full OTAs and camps, which he didn't have this past off-season - he is after all the 1st round pick, and I have to believe that the scouts and the FO saw something in him what impressed them. Franklin and Johnson at DT could work, but I would seriously think about an upgrade there - no matter how much I like Johnson, I think he is better suited to being a rotational guy and not a day 1 starter. Of course that could change with the full off-season and Spags at the reigns, but that is all very uncertain at this point in time. Franklin wasn't very impressive, but like I have already stated on numerous other threads I wouldn't be against seeing him return, especially with a cheap contract. I would say that the Saints need to acquire a big time DT to start in front of Franklin, then Franklin could sub in for this "Mr. QB pressure" on running downs etc. I don't think that the pair of Franklin and Johnson will be able to create the pressure and push we are all hoping for and, therefore, I can't agree with that line-up. Jordan is a DE and while I think that Spags might use him more lining up at center, that is only because he has done it before with DEs - lining even four of them on the front four. While I love both Casillas and Wilson, I really hope that they are able to bring in a big time OLB. Casillas has a tendency to get hurt, so I don't know if they can really expect him to start the whole season long. M. Williams would certainly make that LB line-up look a lot more menacing. But, on the secondary I completely agree with your line-up! It's really hard to make estimates at this point in time on how the roster will develop through the FA period and the draft, but I do hope that they are going to bring in at least a good to great DT, OLB, and a DE.
	"I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode