JKool

Good point BnB! I like it.

Billy, sorry for the rant earlier. I think we agree for the most part except about how important a solid cover corner is on a defense (and even then, we\'re not far apart.)

For the record (again), I don\'t think that our corners as they are are a cause for concern, unless one of them gets hurt (and mostly because there don\'t seem to be enough of them). It is just my view that a good to great cover guy would substantially improve our pass defense (both by simply covering and by giving our ferocious DL a few extra seconds here and there).

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

GumboBC

JKool --

You made some very good points in that post. And you changed my mind to a certain degree.

I\'m not completely sold on our CBs. I look for them to have some bad games. Games in which if we had better CB it would help out greatly.

But, then again, I\'m not sold on our D-line or our linebackers. Or our safties as far at that\'s concerned.

The only place I feel really comfortable about is at DE. But, we have a LOT of talent on defense and that\'s one thing that can\'t be coached. It\'s a good base to improve upon. Then add in John Pease, and I see reason for optimisim. I know you and most folks are optimisitc. Some aren\'t.

I\'ve just never been able to understand the concept of: Well, they aren\'t proven so I don\'t have much hope they will be any better?

JKool --You bring a lot to this board, brother. Granola and all......... :P

JKool

Billy,

Agreed!

I do think that skepticism about some players is warranted (some draft picks and UFAs are hard to get your hopes up about). However, I think it is fun to imagine how the rookies will do, salivate over the big name signings (when there are any), and so on. Those players may be \"unproven\", but we can read about them and get reports by people whose job it is to evaluate them. I don\'t see why those reports don\'t count as evidence!

I also sometimes think that some people just have a harder time dealing with thwarted \"hopes\" than others. I often wonder if that isn\'t the really difference between an optimist and a pessimist - merely how hard one takes it when one is wrong.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

WhoDat

For the record, I think you might be misconstruing the issue somewhat - or better put, combining two separate issues.

For example - I\'ve thought that the Saints were a few key positions away from having all the pieces in play on D. DT was one of those positions. So was MLB and CB. For those spots, I had hoped the Saints would find \"proven\" talent to plug in and make an impact immediately. My thinking was (and has been) that with strong play from those spots with the other surrounding players we have, the D would improve enough to put us over the hump.

Part of this stems from our differing opinion on what a team needs to be really successful. IMO, a defense needs 2 good DEs (which we had), one good DT and some depth at that spot, a playmaker at MLB, a playmaker in the secondary, and then speed everywhere else. You focus more on the D-line. I do not argue its importance, we just look at building a defense slightly differently.


In regards to the \"I don\'t have much hope they will be any better\" part, I think you misunderstand the message. 1) A proven player is more likely to impact the game NOW whereas a \"young talent\" has to grow and learn. 2) More importantly, the basis for saying certain players on this team aren\'t progressing has nothing to do with being unproven. In fact, it has more to do with a proven track record of underperforming.

I have, for example, been down on Hodge for his lack of progress and overall level of play. Further, IMO, the coaches haven\'t shown that they are very capable of grooming players on the defensive side of the ball. There are two parts to that to me. 1) Getting the player to \"game readiness\" quickly and 2) getting the player to his full potential. We have a LOT of talent on D, but I can\'t say that I\'ve seen anyone truly play up to his total potential. Even Howard, Grant, etc. have not played as well as I think they are capable. The one exception to that might be Jay Bellamy last season. Fred Thomas is also another guy who has probably played up to his potential. Otherwise, who has played up on D? Hand in 2000 maybe. Grant? Howard? Sullivan? Jackson? Hodge? Allen? Ruff? Rodgers? D Carter? Ambrose? Craver? Brown - he\'s getting there. Tebucky? Mitchell? Knight maybe.

Point is, suggesting that a team already full of young talent in need of a few key players and leadership does not need another young inexperienced player isn\'t a knock on the player. He just isn\'t the right fit right now. Especially when the team has tons of money available to go get the key FAs we need. Those are my thoughts anyway.

[Edited on 2/7/2004 by WhoDat]

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

GumboBC

WhoDat --

I agree with most of what you say. But, I don\'t know how much I agree about the coaching staff not developing the talent on defense.

IMO, you are leaving out some important factors:

1. How young and inexperienced a lot of these guys are.
2. Where they were drafted at. (some players are more of a project than others)
3. Injuries.

Daren Howard: Was drafted in 2nd round and had a great rookie year recording 11 sacks. But he had Joe Johnson and Le Roi Glover taking the double team off of him. The next year he only had six sacks when Glover and Joe Johnson wasn\'t there. I don\'t see \"development\" having too much to do with it. You can blame \"scheme\" or losing quality players, but NOT \"development\", IMO.

Charles Grant: Rookie in 2002- 7 sacks, pretty good rookie season considering he came out as a junior. Second year player in 2003- 10 sacks without having Darren Howard or anyone else to take the double team off of him. Despite all the injuries on defense, Grant still progressed from the previous year.

Jay Bellamy - Had the best year of his 10- year career in 2003.

Norman Hand -- I believe he\'s about to be cut from Seattle.

Sedrick Hodge: Drafted in the 3rd round in 2001. Played sparingly in his rookie year. In his sophomore season he recorded 74 tackles playing behind a terrible D-line. Was out for 7 games last year which held his progress back. For a guy that was drafted in the 3rd round and injured for most of last year, it\'s impossible to say the coaches haven\'t developed him properly.





[Edited on 2/7/2004 by GumboBC]

BlackandBlue

Grant is not the runstopper that Howard is, while I believe that Grant will be a better pass rusher. Now don\'t get me wrong, Grant is decent against the run and Howard is a good pass rusher, but it\'s all to scale.

FrenzyFan

I am not surprised that what I said was misconstrued. I never implied in any way that our players would not get any better. I never even challenged their potential and talent (except at CB - you\'ll never convince me that small, slow corners that force you into cover 2 all the time are \"adequate\"). What I said what that I have no evidence to suggest that our unproven players will be so overpowering that they compensate for what I perceive to be a weakness (at CB). What I have is hope, and that is all.

I\'ve said on other posts that I believe our pass rush will be a good one. In that same post, I asserted that it will cause problems for inexperienced or hesitant QBs we face and that we will likely win those games. I fear the teams that have quick-thinking, quick-reacting QBs - because they can exploit our weak secondary.

Now, of course anyone can believe anything they like including the idea that our corners are \"good\". I don\'t have to share that opinion. Anyone can believe that the talent and potential we all see in our defensive line will come together and be the most devastating thing since the nuclear weapon. It may happen. I HOPE IT DOES! If it does, I will start feeling better about our chances against teams with a good passing game. If I see it, you can bet I will comment on it and praise them for it.

My opinion is not frozen in one unrealistic viewpoint based on fantasy and hopeful thoughts, nor is it locked into a negative mode by \"pessimism\" (or whatever the board catch-phrase of the day is.) My opinion can change as the evidence does, and throughout the season I can feel better or worse about things depending on what I see and how an individual performs.

\"The AB brand of TP will hurt your O-ring.\" - BlackandBlue

http://www.darrylbercegeay.com/wsmith1.jpg

GumboBC

FrenzyFan --

In no way am I suggesting that you don\'t have the right to feel however you choose. I think good healthy discussion comes from different view points. And that includes yours. But when you start tossing words like \"abyssmal\" around, I consider that an extreme view point.

And when you say that you need \"proof\" before you will feel hopeful, I\'m not really sure exactly what you mean.

I apologize if I misinterpeted the meaning of your post. But, it seemed like it was your intention to make a case there wasn\'t really anything to get excited about becasue there\'s not enough evidence to suggest otherwise.

Obviously everyone has their own opinion on the 2004 Saints. I don\'t expect everyone to agree with the way I see things. And I don\'t agree with everyone else either.

After reading your last post, you made a clear case why you feel the way you do. However, I was having hard time determing why you felt the way you did in your first post.

In any event, I think we both agree that we hope the Saints have a great season.

BlackandBlue

FF, if it makes you feel any better, I view corners the same way as you do. If you play the position, and you are shorter than 5\'11\" and are considered slower than average, you have a lower performance ceiling, and there\'s nothing you can do about it.
Thomas is our best CB, we\'ve beat it into the ground how he has a big heart and can lay some wood from time to time, but that will always be overshadowed by the fact that he\'s 5\'9\", and slower than some of our linebackers.

[Edited on 2/7/2004 by BlackandBlue]

GumboBC

Had to throw that linebacker comparison in there, eh?

Make no mistake, I know our CB\'s are a liability in many ways. But, when you want to talk about evidence -- There is no eveidence to suggest we are going to be terrible in pass coverage. There\'s eveidence to suggest we will be average.

Now, I\'m out of this \"cornerback\" disscussion. :P