In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

So which is it Danno ??

Your math is kinda fuzzy to me .....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RD PK(OVR) NOTES NAME POS SCHOOL
1 18(18) WILL SMITH DE OHIO STATE
2 18(50) from Minnesota DEVERY HENDERSON WR LSU
2 28(60) from St. Louis COURTNEY WATSON ILB NOTRE DAME
5 7(139) from Washington RODNEY LESLIE DT UCLA
5 24(156) from Dallas MIKE KARNEY FB ARIZONA STATE
7 39(240) Compensatory COLBY BOCKWOLDT OLB BYU

Looks to me like 2 LBs and 2DL .... ;)

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

Even better. You trying to make me look even better?
Now I\'m officially confused ;)
Don\'t do that again.

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

Damn - even I\'m confused by that one.

But our draft still was only so-so and our FA period was average at best... again. Kind of starting to feel like 8-8 boys. ;)

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

Sorry Who Dat , I just needed to get the Bockwoldt garbage out of the way .

We start with :

SLB 52 Hodge, Sedrick 50 Allen, James 54 Smith, Darrin
MLB 56 Ruff, Orlando 54 Smith, Darrin 58 Grant, Cie
WLB 59 Rodgers, Derrick 53 Knight, Roger

Then end with :

Probable 2004 starting line-up…
SLB-Hodge
MLB-Watson
WLB-Grant

The point still remains
The Saints added 1 starting linebacker to an under achieveing unit in 2003 and did not address the need for a shut down corner .....

Grant is an unproven originally projected Safety in the N.F.L. coming off an injury season , which makes him a rookie and out of his drafted position .

The point still remains , they failed to address glaring needs ..... ;)

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

I see - Danno, allow me to translate.

I believe that 08 is saying that with two guys having zero playing experience and one cronic underachiever starting at LB, the unit is no better than when it started. Further, the need at CB, which we all agree is real, was not addressed. Thus, the net change is zero. What he\'s saying is not necessarily that the needs weren\'t addressed, but maybe better put - the needs weren\'t addressed correctly.

Forgive me if I\'ve misspoken, my 08ese is not what it used to be. ;)

[Edited on 28/4/2004 by WhoDat]

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

Here is the way I see it .

If a team has a serious need at a position , they will address the need with either a first or second pick . The caliber of player is higher and has the greater potential to start .

If a team is looking at a player for the back up role or for a special skill , they usually address the need around picks three to five .

Camp bodies , punters and Kickers and a real project player are usually found in the pick range of six to seven .

The draft included 1 LB who could start . The entire unit needs to be reworked and Colby is a camp body if that . While there was potential value in the draft , it was value that did not solve the real issues at linebacker and corner .

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

The Saints draft wasnt that bad considering the amount of talent that was in the draft. I thought it was alot of quality but not exactly a savior for this year. The Saints could have did alot worse in this draft but they could have did better. No matter what would have happened everyone would still br having a fit about it. I know for 20 mins. after there first pick I was dumbfounded, but after I realized what just happened, I was like it was a smart move. I\'m not sure I would have wanted a rookie CB, that was in this draft so they did the smart thing and take the best player and highest rated one that was on their board.

If they do something smart like pick up a decent CB to go along with the scrubs we have now, I\'d be alot more enthused about this draft. I\'m sorry people but I dont think our DB\'s now could stop anyone.



[Edited on 29/4/2004 by NellyFord]