In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

Let the second-guessing continue.

Surely, fans have been shrugging their shoulders about issues with the New Orleans Saints' 2004 draft class. Now's just the first time to step back and take a look at what they did, with some explanation from them about why they did it.

So, let's take a look at some doubts:

Another defensive end? - Yep, for the second time in three years, the Saints took a defensive end with a first-round selection. Ohio State's Will Smith joined Charles Grant, which wouldn't be curious except for another guy in the picture - Darren Howard.

Why did the Saints make this selection? There are a couple of reasons.



want to see those reasons? click here:


http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunh...ts/8527816.htm

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

The draft gods that smiled on the Saints in recent years frowned on them this weekend.

The fortuitous falls that allowed the club to acquire prize talents like Darren Howard, Deuce McAllister and LeCharles Bentley never materialized this year, at least not at the positions where the Saints needed the most help.


When the Saints began the draft their biggest need was a playmaker on the back end of the defense, a \"focal point\" player as General Manager Mickey Loomis suggested.

The four players they believed best fit that description -- cornerbacks DeAngelo Hall and Dunta Robinson and Miami linebackers Jonathan Vilma and D.J. Williams -- all went in the top 17 picks. The Saints hoped at least one of the group would somehow fall their way at No. 18. It didn\'t happen.

A series of bad breaks converged to undermine the plan.

First, the last-minute legal maneuver to bar Mike Williams from the draft removed a top 15-level player from the mix and created a costly domino effect on defensive talent. Atlanta, at No. 8, and Jacksonville, at No. 9, wanted Williams. The Falcons instead picked Hall, who otherwise might have slipped to Houston or the New York Jets and allowed Vilma to topple down the board.

Second, a possible trade with Pittsburgh at No. 11 fell through when Ben Roethlisberger, the Steelers\' most wanted, dropped to their spot. That prevented the Saints from moving into position ahead of the Jets to acquire Vilma.

Denver delivered the final blow by snagging Williams at No. 17. The pick was somewhat of a surprise, given Denver\'s need for a running back.

Saints officials tried to put their best spin on matters. But there was no denying the disappointment. That\'s why head coach Jim Haslett at his press briefing looked like a toddler on Christmas who wanted a new PlayStation and instead got a new suit.

http://www.nola.com/saints/t-p/index...7911281480.xml

The summation reads the same in English and Chineese .

Saints officials tried to put their best spin on matters. But there was no denying the disappointment. Hindsight is 20/20 and the staff took a chance and lost and failed to address the glaring needs .... ;)

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

Failed to address glaring needs? Plural?
Let me see.
MLB-Signed a top 3 (at worst) guy
FB-Signed a top 3 (at worst) guy
DT-Signed a very good run stuffer
WR-Signed one as good as any available
CB-Failed to address

DEFENSE- Signed the number one D-line prospect in the draft.


Even using your fuzzy logic I see only one need not addressed.

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

I agree Danno, also I believe we drafted 4 starters. Maybe not 4 this year, but we will have 4 of these guys starting next year. Smith, Henderson, Watson, and Karney.

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

Meet the top 10 tacklers for the 2003 season .

Player Team Total

Micheal Barrow NYG 148
Keith Brooking ATL 144
Chris Draft ATL 124
Dhani Jones NYG 120
Dat Nguyen DAL 119
Brian Urlacher CHI 116
Derek M. Smith SF 114
Jeremiah Trotter WAS 113
Nick Barnett GB 112
Ronald McKinnon ARI 105

Meet the Saints

Jay Bellamy NO 94

I am sure even you Danno can see one totally obvious point . These top tacklers are in the first and second lines of a defense .

Bellamy is a safety and the last hope for a defense .

When the leading tackler is a safety , no one is above speculation in the linebacking core and that needs to be addressed .

Mel Mitchell is unproven and coming off IR , Bellamy is getting long in the tooth for the position .Grant is a tweener at the MLB position and originally projected as a Safety .Smith could be a cap casualty . Now add in Sullivan the immature DT who Hasbeen is afraid will learn bad habits is showing up to mini camp 35 pounds over weight and Craver is showing up 20 pounds over weight .

Defense


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
RCB 22 Thomas, Fred 35 Brown, Fahkir 29 Craver, Keyuo
SS 20 Bellamy, Jay 23 Green, Victor 28 Harper, Deveron
FS 34 Jones, Tebucky 37 Gleason, Steve
LCB 33 Ambrose, Ashley 29 Craver, Keyuo

So glad you only see one glaring need .... ;)

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

Can you even read?
I knew I shouldn\'t have reponded to your post.
But I\'ll type slow so you\'ll understand...
YOU said we failed to address NEEDS (plural)
I said we didn\'t address ONE of those needs.
I listed 5 NEEDS (including LB), in which 4 were addressed.

I think a moderator should at least READ someones post before commenting on it.

But maybe reading it isn\'t the problem...

Whats you wonderlick?

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

Dangit Danno. I just spit coffee all over my keyboard...again...thanks to you. Welcome back to my signature! :P

[Edited on 28/4/2004 by saintfan]

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

We had a draft strategy? :P

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

I read just fine .

You listed 1 linebacker addressed .

I showed you :

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

That makes 3 total ... ;)

I will reprint the following , hopefully you do not miss it again ...

In defense of N.O. draft strategy
 

And we draft 2 LB\'s and a D-lineman.
What did you want 7 LB\'s?
\" When the leading tackler is a safety\" means your front seven is not working, it doesn\'t mean draft 7 LB\'s.

Back to your post. You said we didn\'t address our glaring needs?

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]