In defense of N.O. draft strategy

pakowitz · 04-27-2004, 02:42 PM

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

saintz08 · 04-27-2004, 04:02 PM

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 ....

Danno · 04-27-2004, 04:56 PM

Hindsight is 20/20 and the staff took a chance and lost and failed to address the glaring needs ....

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.

Boogro · 04-27-2004, 09:59 PM

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.

saintz08 · 04-28-2004, 12:47 AM

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

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 ....

Danno · 04-28-2004, 07:34 AM

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

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?

saintfan · 04-28-2004, 10:21 AM

Whats you wonderlick?

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]

BrooksMustGo · 04-28-2004, 11:21 AM

We had a draft strategy? :P

saintz08 · 04-28-2004, 12:27 PM

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?

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 ...

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

Danno · 04-28-2004, 01:02 PM

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?

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 ...

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

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?

04-27-2004, 02:42 PM	#1
pakowitz The Dark Overlord Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,450	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

04-27-2004, 04:02 PM	#2
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	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 ....
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	\"Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn\'t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed.\" - George S. Patton On another note, I\'ll take a bite of that crow 08. - Saintfan Brooks is a moron!! - Halo

04-27-2004, 04:56 PM	#3
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	In defense of N.O. draft strategy Hindsight is 20/20 and the staff took a chance and lost and failed to address the glaring needs .... 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.

04-27-2004, 09:59 PM	#4
Boogro Nose Digger Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 341	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.

04-28-2004, 12:47 AM	#5
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	In defense of N.O. draft strategy Even using your fuzzy logic I see only one need not addressed. 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 ....
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	\"Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn\'t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed.\" - George S. Patton On another note, I\'ll take a bite of that crow 08. - Saintfan Brooks is a moron!! - Halo

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

04-28-2004, 07:34 AM	#6
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	In defense of N.O. draft strategy So glad you only see one glaring need .... 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?

04-28-2004, 10:21 AM	#7
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	In defense of N.O. draft strategy Whats you wonderlick? 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]

04-28-2004, 11:21 AM	#8
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	In defense of N.O. draft strategy We had a draft strategy? :P

04-28-2004, 12:27 PM	#9
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	In defense of N.O. draft strategy 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? 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 ... When the leading tackler is a safety , no one is above speculation in the linebacking core and that needs to be addressed .
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020

04-28-2004, 01:02 PM	#10
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	In defense of N.O. draft strategy 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? 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 ... When the leading tackler is a safety , no one is above speculation in the linebacking core and that needs to be addressed . 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?