and the swamee says...........

DatFu · 04-17-2004, 10:06 AM

all this swamy stuff is dumb, draft clayton though.

Boogro · 04-17-2004, 10:08 AM

all this swamy stuff is dumb, draft clayton though.

Good one

BlackandBlue · 04-17-2004, 11:52 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all this swamy stuff is dumb, draft clayton though.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good one

Not really.

DatFu · 04-17-2004, 12:14 PM

[Edited on 4/17/2004 by pakowitz]

arbitrary and capricious this was

[Edited on 17/4/2004 by DatFu]

JKool · 04-17-2004, 12:25 PM

Swamee,

I like the \"Mr.\" but it is not necessary.

On your view when should one start drafting (or gathering from FA) those players needed for a good defense? It isn\'t really after we have a high caliber backup at every skilled position on offense is it?

I agree that good backups are needed, but not at the expense of a starter at another position. There are two reasons for this (1) - if you draft or get through FA a starter, then the guy who was your starter becomes the high caliber backup (unless he truly sucked, in which case it could not have been left unaddressed) that you suggest we must have, and (2) you have no chance at all of even making the playoffs at all if you build one side of the ball (e.g. O only) at a time (since one unit will suck). If you were to have both sides built and have no bad luck, then you can win the Super Bowl with no high caliber backups. Furthermore, if you don\'t win it due to bad luck (injuries etc), then the next year you can draft or gather the backups you need, while not having to suck the year before.

swamee · 04-17-2004, 05:06 PM

Swamee,

I like the \"Mr.\" but it is not necessary.

On your view when should one start drafting (or gathering from FA) those players needed for a good defense? It isn\'t really after we have a high caliber backup at every skilled position on offense is it?

I agree that good backups are needed, but not at the expense of a starter at another position. There are two reasons for this (1) - if you draft or get through FA a starter, then the guy who was your starter becomes the high caliber backup (unless he truly sucked, in which case it could not have been left unaddressed) that you suggest we must have, and (2) you have no chance at all of even making the playoffs at all if you build one side of the ball (e.g. O only) at a time (since one unit will suck). If you were to have both sides built and have no bad luck, then you can win the Super Bowl with no high caliber backups. Furthermore, if you don\'t win it due to bad luck (injuries etc), then the next year you can draft or gather the backups you need, while not having to suck the year before.

i am sorry for the mister, but my uprearing just allows it to pop out sometimes, you see , i was popped as a youngster for not saying mr. mrs., sir, mam etc......and some of em had a wicked back hand.......now if i understand your question i\'ll say this....besides true blue chippers which even then some of em don\'t pan out, the consensus is that a wide reciever or running back is worth a hellva lot more than a corner or safety. and in this upcoming draft although rich in corners and wide recievers with a few running backs, there are still only a few blue chippers......but, there are more blue chip recievers and possibly running backs, that may fall within our grasp long after the blue chip defensive men are gone, with the exception of a defensive end falling for who knows how many reasons......after this, it is do your homework, pick and may god bless......the saints are looking for someone who can start immediately with there first pick........you\'re on the clock..............swamee
p.s. all i\'m saying as far as backups is, have capable ones in the wings....we don\'t, yet...

JKool · 04-17-2004, 05:40 PM

Alright, I\'m not gonna lie to ya Swamee, I sometimes have trouble understanding what you\'re saying.

Here is my question with better phrasing (maybe you answered it, and I just misunderstood): since offence is more important to winning games on your view, do you really think we should not draft for need on D until we have high caliber backups at all the skill positions on offense? I take it that that is not what you are saying, but your answer could prove illuminating.

Cheers.

swamee · 04-17-2004, 09:35 PM

Alright, I\'m not gonna lie to ya Swamee, I sometimes have trouble understanding what you\'re saying.

Here is my question with better phrasing (maybe you answered it, and I just misunderstood): since offence is more important to winning games on your view, do you really think we should not draft for need on D until we have high caliber backups at all the skill positions on offense? I take it that that is not what you are saying, but your answer could prove illuminating.

Cheers.

well sir, thank you for rephrasing the question and i shall try to answer it again. we will not and cannot address all skill positions needing upgrading on offense, even if they used all their draft picks on offensive players, because quite frankly, the talent would not be there... this is not to say we have glaring needs on offense as much as on defense. in my opinion, we need at least one more good offensive lineman,(versitile would be better) one to two good wide recievers, one good fullback,(and again versitile would be better) one good running back, and i am not sold 100% on tight end at this time......i have no beefs about the qb corp at this time. if you remember last yr at this time, they took a shot with 2 wide recievers , granted later rounds, and the jury is still out on one of em....the other, hmm.......of course they will address defense, hell, they have to......but if that diamond in the rough is there in the 18th, i see em going after it. we all have names we want to see em go after, but in all likelihood it will be offensive names that have the best shot going at 18th.....now you don\'t just suppose denver moved one ahead of us for the hell of it, do you? they feel one of those blue chippers may be there.....they are saying rb, but i would not be suprised to see em take a reciever at all......one will definitely be there......
now, be sure and stay tuned for my next segment of, \" the swamee enters tom benson\'s mind\" swamee

04-17-2004, 10:06 AM	#21
DatFu Registered Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 57	and the swamee says........... all this swamy stuff is dumb, draft clayton though.
DatFu Registered Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 57

04-17-2004, 10:08 AM	#22
Boogro Nose Digger Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 341	and the swamee says........... all this swamy stuff is dumb, draft clayton though. Good one

04-17-2004, 11:52 AM	#23
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	and the swamee says........... quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- all this swamy stuff is dumb, draft clayton though. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good one Not really.

04-17-2004, 12:14 PM	#24
DatFu Registered Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 57	and the swamee says........... [Edited on 4/17/2004 by pakowitz] arbitrary and capricious this was [Edited on 17/4/2004 by DatFu]
DatFu Registered Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 57

04-17-2004, 12:25 PM	#25
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	and the swamee says........... Swamee, I like the \"Mr.\" but it is not necessary. On your view when should one start drafting (or gathering from FA) those players needed for a good defense? It isn\'t really after we have a high caliber backup at every skilled position on offense is it? I agree that good backups are needed, but not at the expense of a starter at another position. There are two reasons for this (1) - if you draft or get through FA a starter, then the guy who was your starter becomes the high caliber backup (unless he truly sucked, in which case it could not have been left unaddressed) that you suggest we must have, and (2) you have no chance at all of even making the playoffs at all if you build one side of the ball (e.g. O only) at a time (since one unit will suck). If you were to have both sides built and have no bad luck, then you can win the Super Bowl with no high caliber backups. Furthermore, if you don\'t win it due to bad luck (injuries etc), then the next year you can draft or gather the backups you need, while not having to suck the year before.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

04-17-2004, 05:06 PM	#26
swamee Registered Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 67	and the swamee says........... Swamee, I like the \"Mr.\" but it is not necessary. On your view when should one start drafting (or gathering from FA) those players needed for a good defense? It isn\'t really after we have a high caliber backup at every skilled position on offense is it? I agree that good backups are needed, but not at the expense of a starter at another position. There are two reasons for this (1) - if you draft or get through FA a starter, then the guy who was your starter becomes the high caliber backup (unless he truly sucked, in which case it could not have been left unaddressed) that you suggest we must have, and (2) you have no chance at all of even making the playoffs at all if you build one side of the ball (e.g. O only) at a time (since one unit will suck). If you were to have both sides built and have no bad luck, then you can win the Super Bowl with no high caliber backups. Furthermore, if you don\'t win it due to bad luck (injuries etc), then the next year you can draft or gather the backups you need, while not having to suck the year before. i am sorry for the mister, but my uprearing just allows it to pop out sometimes, you see , i was popped as a youngster for not saying mr. mrs., sir, mam etc......and some of em had a wicked back hand.......now if i understand your question i\'ll say this....besides true blue chippers which even then some of em don\'t pan out, the consensus is that a wide reciever or running back is worth a hellva lot more than a corner or safety. and in this upcoming draft although rich in corners and wide recievers with a few running backs, there are still only a few blue chippers......but, there are more blue chip recievers and possibly running backs, that may fall within our grasp long after the blue chip defensive men are gone, with the exception of a defensive end falling for who knows how many reasons......after this, it is do your homework, pick and may god bless......the saints are looking for someone who can start immediately with there first pick........you\'re on the clock..............swamee p.s. all i\'m saying as far as backups is, have capable ones in the wings....we don\'t, yet...
swamee Registered Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 67

04-17-2004, 05:40 PM	#27
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	and the swamee says........... Alright, I\'m not gonna lie to ya Swamee, I sometimes have trouble understanding what you\'re saying. Here is my question with better phrasing (maybe you answered it, and I just misunderstood): since offence is more important to winning games on your view, do you really think we should not draft for need on D until we have high caliber backups at all the skill positions on offense? I take it that that is not what you are saying, but your answer could prove illuminating. Cheers.

04-17-2004, 09:35 PM	#28
swamee Registered Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 67	and the swamee says........... Alright, I\'m not gonna lie to ya Swamee, I sometimes have trouble understanding what you\'re saying. Here is my question with better phrasing (maybe you answered it, and I just misunderstood): since offence is more important to winning games on your view, do you really think we should not draft for need on D until we have high caliber backups at all the skill positions on offense? I take it that that is not what you are saying, but your answer could prove illuminating. Cheers. well sir, thank you for rephrasing the question and i shall try to answer it again. we will not and cannot address all skill positions needing upgrading on offense, even if they used all their draft picks on offensive players, because quite frankly, the talent would not be there... this is not to say we have glaring needs on offense as much as on defense. in my opinion, we need at least one more good offensive lineman,(versitile would be better) one to two good wide recievers, one good fullback,(and again versitile would be better) one good running back, and i am not sold 100% on tight end at this time......i have no beefs about the qb corp at this time. if you remember last yr at this time, they took a shot with 2 wide recievers , granted later rounds, and the jury is still out on one of em....the other, hmm.......of course they will address defense, hell, they have to......but if that diamond in the rough is there in the 18th, i see em going after it. we all have names we want to see em go after, but in all likelihood it will be offensive names that have the best shot going at 18th.....now you don\'t just suppose denver moved one ahead of us for the hell of it, do you? they feel one of those blue chippers may be there.....they are saying rb, but i would not be suprised to see em take a reciever at all......one will definitely be there...... now, be sure and stay tuned for my next segment of, \" the swamee enters tom benson\'s mind\" swamee
swamee Registered Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 67